Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a stay application under s. 220(6) could be rejected on the premise that it was not entertainable without a 20% pre-deposit of the outstanding demand. The court held that the assessing authority must exercise discretion under s. 220(6) on settled principles, including assessment of "undue hardship," and cannot treat a 20% deposit as a mandatory precondition for considering stay. Since the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of lack of power absent pre-deposit, the impugned rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with the governing jurisprudence. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
