Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
