Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the interim order requiring deposit of 30% of the demand and bank guarantee for the balance deserved modification in view of the contention that a concluded reassessment could not be reopened under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act.
Analysis: The appeals arose from an interim order in the writ petitions. The challenge was that the reassessment had already concluded, and the reopening was said to rest on a later decision of the Supreme Court and on section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, including the contention that section 39(2) was not in force when the reassessment concluded. The Court noted that the question whether jurisdiction existed to reopen the concluded assessment was a substantial issue pending before the single judge, and that the interim arrangement ought to have taken that aspect into account. While normal practice would not favour stay against tax recovery, the peculiar facts justified modification of the interim protection.
Conclusion: The interim order was modified and stay against recovery of the demanded amount was granted on condition of furnishing bank guarantee for 30% of the demand and an undertaking for the balance 70%.