Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The case involves the Admission of appeal for compliance with the deposit requirement of 12.5% u/s 31 of the AP VAT Act. The rejection of endorsement was based on Form-H filing timing post CST assessment. The court held that u/s 31(1) IIIrd proviso, appeal admission requires proof of payment of due amounts and 12.5% difference. As no tax, penalty, or interest was due, the 12.5% deposit was not necessary. Citing M/s. Sri Hari Maharalayam Company case, the court directed appeal consideration without the 12.5% payment. The impugned order was set aside, directing the respondent to admit the appeal without III proviso compliance. The writ petition was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
