<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Petition Maintainable Despite Pre-Deposit Rule as Entire Tax Recovered Prematurely Under Section 73</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91557</link>
    <description>The HC held that the petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies and the requirement of pre-deposit, as the entire tax was recovered prematurely before the expiry of the statutory period for appeal under Section 73. Although statutory appeals require a 10% pre-deposit, the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, and the respondents improperly retained 20% of the tax in dispute without refunding the balance. The court directed respondent No. 1 to refund the excess amount to the petitioner&#039;s electronic credit ledger within one week, recognizing that the respondents were only entitled to retain 20% under Sections 107(6) and 112(8). The petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition Maintainable Despite Pre-Deposit Rule as Entire Tax Recovered Prematurely Under Section 73</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91557</link>
      <description>The HC held that the petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies and the requirement of pre-deposit, as the entire tax was recovered prematurely before the expiry of the statutory period for appeal under Section 73. Although statutory appeals require a 10% pre-deposit, the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, and the respondents improperly retained 20% of the tax in dispute without refunding the balance. The court directed respondent No. 1 to refund the excess amount to the petitioner&#039;s electronic credit ledger within one week, recognizing that the respondents were only entitled to retain 20% under Sections 107(6) and 112(8). The petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>