M/S. AATRAL ASSOCIATES, REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. S. AATRALARASU

VERSUS

THE STATE TAX OFFICER, THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) vide W. P. No. 21544 of 2024 And W. M. P. Nos. 23508 & 23510 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024 

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 1872

The Madras high Court in this case recognized that the petitioner had paid the full tax amount and had filed an appeal solely against the penalty. It was deemed improper to reject the appeal on the grounds that the penalty alone could not be contested. The Court decided that the intimation by which respondent rejected the appeal, should be set aside. The Respondents were ordered to take the appeal on record and to pass appropriate orders on merits, after providing the petitioner with sufficient opportunity to present their case.

In this case, Petitioner paid the tax amount as demanded in the assessment order but filed an appeal against the penalty portion of the assessment order. However, appeal was rejected as not maintainable, asserting that a penalty alone could not be challenged separately. It was argued that while they had complied with the tax payment, they sought to challenge only the penalty, and thus the appeal should not have been dismissed.

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