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>Legal Challenge Succeeds: Appeal Reinstated Despite Delay, Ordered Reviewed on Merits Within 90 Days with Specific Tax Conditions</h1> <h3>Thangadurai Nadar Steels & Hardware and Paints Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), The Deputy Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer, Thoothukudi.</h3> Thangadurai Nadar Steels & Hardware and Paints Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), The Deputy Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer, Thoothukudi. - TMI Petitioner's appeal, filed 14 days beyond the statutory period of limitation, was rejected by the Appellate Commissioner. Citing precedent including Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline, respondents contended that an appeal beyond limitation is not maintainable. Court found the delay to be marginal, set aside the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Commissioner to be disposed of 'on merits and in accordance with law.' Disposal is to occur within three months, and the petitioner 'shall be heard without reference of limitation on merits.' Remittal is conditional on the petitioner depositing an additional 20% of the disputed tax over and above the 10% pre-deposit as contemplated under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments. The impugned order is quashed and the third respondent is directed to instruct the bank to de-freeze the petitioner's account after deducting 20% towards pre-deposit. No costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
