Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

about 1 month ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

šŸ“° š—•š—¼š—ŗš—Æš—®š˜† š—›š—¶š—“š—µ š—–š—¼š˜‚š—暝˜ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“: š—©š—¼š—¹š˜‚š—»š˜š—®š—暝˜† š——š—²š—½š—¼š˜€š—¶š˜ š—Øš—»š—±š—²š—æ š—¦š—²š—°š˜š—¶š—¼š—» šŸ³šŸÆ(šŸ±) š—”š—°š—°š—²š—½š˜š—²š—± š—®š˜€ š—£š—暝—²-š——š—²š—½š—¼š˜€š—¶š˜ š—³š—¼š—æ š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ šŸ“¢ In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court confirmed that deposits made "under protest" under Section 73(5) of the GST Act can be counted as pre-deposits for filing an appeal under Section 107. The ruling reinforces that procedural or technical requirements cannot obstruct the right to appeal.

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€ š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: Vinod Metal vs State of Maharashtra š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—”š—¼: WP (L) 17026/2023 š——š—®š˜š—²: 18-July-2023

š—§š—¶š—ŗš—²š—¹š—¶š—»š—² & š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²š˜€: The case focused on whether a deposit made voluntarily "under protest" as per Section 73(5) could be adjusted to fulfill the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6) for an appeal. The petitioner argued that this voluntary deposit was eligible to count as the required pre-deposit, despite procedural guidelines suggesting otherwise.

āš– š—–š—¼š˜‚š—暝˜ š—¢š—Æš˜€š—²š—暝˜ƒš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»š˜€: The court underscored that any voluntary deposit under Section 73(5) should be considered in the overall tax assessment and cannot be dismissed based on technical grounds. It further stated that a voluntary payment is subject to the taxpayer's contentions and should be counted toward compliance if demanded as a condition for filing an appeal under Section 107(6).

āš– š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Bombay High Court ruled that the voluntary deposit made "under protest" must be included as part of the mandatory pre-deposit for appeal compliance under Section 107(6). This ruling strengthens the principle that procedural or technical details should not defeat the statutory right to appeal.

šŸ“œ š—œš—ŗš—½š—¹š—¶š—°š—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»š˜€: This ruling establishes that deposits made under Section 73(5) are integral to tax compliance and may fulfill pre-deposit requirements, safeguarding the taxpayer's substantive rights against procedural barriers. š—§š—²š—®š—ŗ š—šš—¦š—§š—½š—®š—»š—®š—°š—²š—® 7503031378

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own