Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
