2024 (8) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the order dated 30th May 2023 passed under Section 73 of the said Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018, the petitioner no.1 had preferred an appeal. Unfortunately, while filing the appeal, the petitioner no.1 only paid 1 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute in place and stead of 10 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute as required for maintaining an appeal under Section 107 (6) of the said Act. It appears that the appellate authority had proceeded to dismiss the said appeal by an order dated 31st January, 2024 on the ground of delay. The petitioners, however, candidly submit that since the petitioners did not make payment of the required pre deposit for maintaining an appeal, the appeal stood dismissed. 3. It is in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal along with the pre deposit, as is required for maintaining the appeal. Such appeal was also delayed. Subsequently, after dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners had filed another appeal in respect of the self-same cause of action, though there is no sanction in law for filing the same. He, however, acknowledges the fact that the petitioners, by filing a subsequent appeal had paid further 10 per cent of the amount of the tax in dispute as is required for preferring such appeal. It is submitted that the petitioners did not offer any proper explanation for the delay. As such, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for rejecting the appeal. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the mater....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ays, the subsequent appeal along with the required deposit was filed on 5th February, 2024. The appeal filed on 6th October, 2024 was a defective appeal. There has been no decision on merit. The petitioners do not stand to gain by filing a belated appeal. 9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and since, the petitioners had already paid approximately 11 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute, i.e., more than the amount required for maintaining an appeal under Section 107(6) of the said Act, I am of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to re-hear the appeal on merits upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As a sequel thereto, the orde....