Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesThis Is Why Madras High Court Reduces Pre-Deposit From 25% To 10% 

This Is Why Madras High Court Reduces Pre-Deposit From 25% To 10% 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

Citing the established practice of the Madras High Court, which typically directs a 10% pre-deposit when appeals are filed within the limitation period and 25% only in time-barred cases, the Madras High Court has modified its earlier order.

Originally, the matter had been remanded with a direction to deposit 25%. However, upon being apprised of the Madras High Court’s approach, the  bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq revised its order to require only a 10% deposit.

It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the Madras High Court, in similar circumstances, typically directs a 10% pre-deposit when the appeal or writ is filed within the prescribed time limit, reserving a higher 25% deposit requirement only for delayed or time-barred cases.

Taking this into consideration, and with the Revenue’s consent, the Madras High Court expressed its inclination to remand the matter back to the authorities, subject to the petitioners depositing only 10% of the disputed tax amount. 

The Court modified its earlier order dated 09.04.2025, which had directed a 25% deposit, and substituted it with the reduced 10% requirement.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s.Poomika Infra Developers Versus State Tax Officer

Case No.: W.P. Nos.33562, 33563, 33565, 33573, 33692, 33758 of 2024, 1842, and 1949 of 2025

Date: 25.04.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: G.Natarajan

Counsel For Respondent: S.Senthilnathan

Read More: Bombay High Court Allows Release Of ‘Costao’ Film Based On Retired Customs Officer’s Life, Rejects Churchill Alemao’s Defamation-Based Injunction Plea

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Mere Omission In GST Returns Doesn’t Justify S. 74 Penalty: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru Bench, has held that mere...

No S. 43B Disallowance Without Deduction Claim: Supreme Court Deletes Rs. 69.92 Lakh Excise Duty Addition

The Supreme Court has held that an amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B...

CBIC Revises Declaration For Anti-Dumping Duty Exclusions On Titanium Dioxide Imports From China

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has revised the electronic declaration...

Income Tax Reassessment On Fresh Share Overvaluation Report Valid; No Change Of Opinion Without Earlier Finding: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the reopening of income tax assessments based on a...

More like this

Mere Omission In GST Returns Doesn’t Justify S. 74 Penalty: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Bengaluru Bench, has held that mere...

No S. 43B Disallowance Without Deduction Claim: Supreme Court Deletes Rs. 69.92 Lakh Excise Duty Addition

The Supreme Court has held that an amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B...

CBIC Revises Declaration For Anti-Dumping Duty Exclusions On Titanium Dioxide Imports From China

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has revised the electronic declaration...