GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2017 (7) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2017 (7) TMI 415 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Maintainability of petition - pre-deposit - delay in filing an appeal before the tribunal - Held that: - the petitioner has not complied with the pre-deposit issue. This appears to be a factual error as the demand of ₹ 14 lakhs as ordered by the first respondent was paid through banking channel. Therefore, the conclusion arrived requires interference. - Whether the first respondent was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

J. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Joseph Prabakar For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Sr.Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2.By consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3.The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent under order in Appeal No.254/2016 dated 27.04.2016. As against the order impugned, the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be entertained by this Court as he challenged the impugned order on the ground other than the merits of assessment. In the light of the said submission, this Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the revenue. 4.The petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent as against the order of assessment passed by the second respondent relating to demand of service tax under the head Maintenance or Repair Services . The petitioner was issued with t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ₹ 7.25 lakhs, directed the petitioner to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 14 lakhs within a time frame. According to the petitioner, he has complied with the said condition and remitted the said sum of ₹ 14 lakhs and also remitted a sum of ₹ 41,43,127/- on various dates. The first respondent, while considering the appeal, in paragraph-6 of the order, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with the pre-deposit issue. This appears to be a factual error as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version