2024 (7) TMI 1154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....demand by the respective Assessing Officers, raising demands over and above the taxes paid by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners had approached the Appellate Authority, which is the 2nd respondent-Additional Commissioner (Sales Tax), Appellate Authority, Tirupati. The appeals filed by the petitioners are as follows: S.No. Appeal No. Date 1. AD 371122004233T 19.11.2022 2. AD 371122004145Q 19.11.2022 3. AD 371122004158J 19.11.2022 4. AD 371122004176L 19.11.2022 5. AD 371122004198F 19.11.2022 6. AD 371122004138L 19.11.2022 These appeals were rejected on the ground that they had been filed beyond time and also that the pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax, required to be paid under Section 107....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....V.J.K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the rejection of the appeals on the ground of non-payment of the pre-deposit is un-reasonable in as much as the said payment had been made though under a different head. He would contend that the petitioners were forced to make the said payment under a different head as they were unable to pay under the right head of APL-01 due to a technical glitch in the online mechanism provided for such pre-deposit. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit the substantive requirement of the Act had been complied with as the Commercial Tax Department had received the pre-deposit though under a different head. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit ....