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, while considering stay of recovery in an appeal under section 18A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Tribunal was bound to consider the relevant facts contemplated by section 18A(5), including payment of tax on the same goods in other States, and whether the direction to deposit a substantial part of the demand could stand.
Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded mainly on a prima facie view that the stock transfers were in reality inter-State sales and also on the magnitude of the demand, but it did not meaningfully apply section 18A(5). That provision requires consideration of relevant facts when interim relief is sought. The record showed a categorical assertion that tax had already been paid in the transferee States, supported by documentary material. The question whether the assessment order was correct on the merits was still pending before the Tribunal, and the High Court declined to express any view on that dispute. At the stay stage, however, the Tribunal was required to examine the statutory factors and could not insist on a large deposit without addressing them.
Conclusion: The condition directing deposit of Rs. 3,53,12,000/- was set aside and recovery of the assessed amount was stayed pending the appeal, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: Interim recovery was restrained because the Tribunal had not properly applied the statutory stay criteria under section 18A(5), while the merits of the assessment were kept open for determination in appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: When stay is sought under section 18A(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the authority must consider the relevant statutory facts, including payment of tax on the same goods in other States, before imposing a condition for deposit of the disputed demand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
