TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the stay order directing deposit of 50% of the disputed tax required interference, and whether the appellate authority should be directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
Analysis: The stay order referred to the earlier judgment relied on by the petitioner, but gave no reasons for declining full stay. In the circumstances, interference was warranted, and the pending appeal required early disposal with protection against recovery proceedings meanwhile.
Outcome: The stay order was quashed, the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the appeal within two months, and recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance till then.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
