MANJUNATHA OIL MILL, M/S. SRI SAPTHAGIRESWARA OIL MILL

VERSUS

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC) AND OTHERS vide WRIT PETITION NO: 14059/2024, WRIT PETITION NO: 14060/2024, WRIT PETITION NO: 14163/2024, WRIT PETITION NO: 14164/2024, WRIT PETITION NO: 14166/2024, WRIT PETITION NO: 14186/2024 dated 10.07.2024 

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 1549

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in this case directed the Appellate Authority to investigate and validate the petitioners' claims of a technical glitch preventing payment under the correct head. If validated, the authority is to accept the alternative payments made under DRC-03 and proceed with hearing the appeals. his judgment emphasizes the need for administrative flexibility in the face of technical challenges and ensures that procedural technicalities do not obstruct substantive justice. 

The petitioners claimed they couldn't pay the pre-deposit under the designated head APL-01 due to a technical glitch and instead paid under DRC-03. The Appellate Authority refused to accept this payment as compliant.  

In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner approached the High Court, leading to a Division Bench's decision to remand the matters back to the Appellate Authority to consider condonation of delay and the issue of pre-deposit non-payment. 

In the present round of litigation, upon remand, the Appellate Authority accepted the delay condonation but again rejected the DRC-03 payments for the pre-deposit requirement under APL-01. The Appellate Authority's refusal to consider the technical glitch and the resultant payment under DRC-03 was seen as non-compliance with the Division Bench's directions. 

 

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426