TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs tax authorities to accept appeal without pre-deposit when tax amount is unspecified</h1> <h3>SRI HARI MAHARALAYAM COMPANY Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, LALAPETA CIRCLE AND OTHERS</h3> SRI HARI MAHARALAYAM COMPANY Versus COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, LALAPETA CIRCLE AND OTHERS - [2021] 86 G S.T.R. 182 (AP) Issues:1. Entitlement to receive H forms after assessment order is passed.2. Insistence upon payment of 12.5% of disputed tax for entertaining appeal.3. Legal position on belated filing of H forms under the CST Act.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of H forms by the first respondent after the assessment order was passed. The petitioner argued that as per settled legal position, H forms filed belatedly can still be received. The first respondent's refusal led to a demand of a substantial amount, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal against the decision.2. The second issue revolved around the insistence of the second respondent on the payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax as a condition for entertaining the appeal against the endorsement. The petitioner contended that since no tax amount was quantified under the endorsement, the demand for pre-deposit of 12.5% of the disputed tax was unjustified. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes did not contest the facts or legal position presented by the petitioner.3. The Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the material record, found merit in the petitioner's request. The judgment allowed the writ petition and directed the second respondent to entertain the appeal without requiring the payment of 12.5% of the disputed tax. The Court emphasized that in cases where no tax amount is specified in the endorsement, insisting on a pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal is untenable. The decision was made in light of the legal position regarding the acceptance of belatedly filed H forms under the CST Act.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Andhra Pradesh High Court highlights the legal issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the final decision rendered by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
