https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357665 Applications under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2017 could not be rejected for want of website filing where the portal did not allow adjustment of amounts already in deposit. The court treated the petitioner's earlier 30% deposit before the Appellate Authority as a colourless deposit, not appropriated to any specific head until finality of the appeal, so the revenue could not insist on an additional 10% interest payment as a precondition. It also held that the demand notice and assessment order showed interest formed part of the total demand, making refusal of scheme benefit on the ground of no separately demanded interest arrears untenable. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the applications had to be accepted subject to tax payment requirements. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Mar 2018 07:57:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357665 Applications under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2017 could not be rejected for want of website filing where the portal did not allow adjustment of amounts already in deposit. The court treated the petitioner's earlier 30% deposit before the Appellate Authority as a colourless deposit, not appropriated to any specific head until finality of the appeal, so the revenue could not insist on an additional 10% interest payment as a precondition. It also held that the demand notice and assessment order showed interest formed part of the total demand, making refusal of scheme benefit on the ground of no separately demanded interest arrears untenable. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the applications had to be accepted subject to tax payment requirements. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357665