<?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 (10) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150027</link>
    <description>An appellate authority under section 20(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 has implied and ancillary power to stay recovery of tax during the pendency of an appeal. Although the right of appeal is conditioned on payment of tax or penalty, the proviso permits the appeal to be entertained despite non-payment or part-payment where the dealer cannot pay, and that discretion necessarily includes power to prevent the appeal from being defeated by coercive recovery. The stated administrative limit on interim stays did not negate the authority&#039;s jurisdiction. The challenge to the stay power was therefore rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 10:01:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=167068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (10) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150027</link>
      <description>An appellate authority under section 20(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 has implied and ancillary power to stay recovery of tax during the pendency of an appeal. Although the right of appeal is conditioned on payment of tax or penalty, the proviso permits the appeal to be entertained despite non-payment or part-payment where the dealer cannot pay, and that discretion necessarily includes power to prevent the appeal from being defeated by coercive recovery. The stated administrative limit on interim stays did not negate the authority&#039;s jurisdiction. The challenge to the stay power was therefore rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>