<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1970 (2) TMI 91 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148727</link>
    <description>An appellate authority&#039;s discretion to insist on prepayment of disputed tax under a statutory proviso must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily. Where the assessee had paid the undisputed tax, raised substantial issues, and offered security, refusal to entertain the appeal without considering that discretion was improper. An order declining to receive an appeal unless the disputed tax was paid was treated as an order under the appeal provision because it effectively rejected the memorandum for non-compliance with the payment condition. The appeals should therefore have been entertained on furnishing security, and the refusal was held appealable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 16:32:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (2) TMI 91 - MYSORE HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148727</link>
      <description>An appellate authority&#039;s discretion to insist on prepayment of disputed tax under a statutory proviso must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily. Where the assessee had paid the undisputed tax, raised substantial issues, and offered security, refusal to entertain the appeal without considering that discretion was improper. An order declining to receive an appeal unless the disputed tax was paid was treated as an order under the appeal provision because it effectively rejected the memorandum for non-compliance with the payment condition. The appeals should therefore have been entertained on furnishing security, and the refusal was held appealable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>