Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Appeal allowed where pre-deposit made through Form GST DRC-03 due to technical glitch

Bimal jain
Court Overturns Appeal Rejection Due to Form Error; Highlights Pre-Deposit Validity Under Section 107(6) of CGST Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court overturned a rejection order in a case where an appeal was dismissed because the pre-deposit was made using Form GST DRC-03 instead of Form APL-01 due to a technical glitch. The petitioner, a business entity, challenged the rejection of their appeal against assessment orders, arguing that the pre-deposit should be considered valid despite the form error. The court remanded the case back to the relevant authorities for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to address the factual issues and delay in filing. The decision was based on Section 107(6) of the CGST Act, which outlines pre-deposit requirements for appeals. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S. SRI SAPTHAGIRESWARA OIL MILL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, UNION OF INDIA, M/S. RAVI TRADERS - 2024 (2) TMI 477 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT set aside the Impugned Rejection Order in case where the appeal filed was rejected on the ground that, pre-deposit was made through Form GST DRC-03 instead of the required Form APL-01, due to technical glitch.

Facts:

Manjunatha Oil Mill (“the Petitioner”) aggrieved by the rejection of appeals filed against the assessment orders passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”),  filed a writ petition, on the ground that, the pre-deposit was made through Form GST DRC-03 instead of the required Form APL-01 due to technical glitch, therefore, the Respondent is not empowered to consider the amount paid through Form GST DRC-03 as 10 percent pre-deposit for filing of appeal.

Held:

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/S. SRI SAPTHAGIRESWARA OIL MILL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) , THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ST) , THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) , STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, UNION OF INDIA, M/S. RAVI TRADERS - 2024 (2) TMI 477 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURTset aside the appeal rejection order and remanded back the matter to the Respondent for further consideration on factual aspects and condonation of delay.

Relevant Provision:

Section 107(6) of the CGST Act:

“(6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid-

(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and

(b) a sum equal to ten per cent. of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order subject to a maximum of twenty-five crore rupees, in relation to which the appeal has been filed.

Provided that no appeal shall be filed against an order under sub-section (3) of section 129, unless a sum equal to twenty-five per cent. of the penalty has been paid by the appellant.”

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles