https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150076 Where the proviso to section 20(3) and Rule 30-B permitted security in multiple forms, the appellate authority had to exercise its discretion judicially and on relevant facts when deciding whether to accept security for stay of tax and penalty. An assessee's offer of immovable property security could not be rejected merely by insisting on bank guarantee alone without examining title, encumbrance, adequacy, or recording reasons. The authority's failure to consider the alternative security and to justify its refusal made the insistence on bank guarantee arbitrary. The impugned orders were set aside and the stay/security applications were directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2013 15:08:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150076 Where the proviso to section 20(3) and Rule 30-B permitted security in multiple forms, the appellate authority had to exercise its discretion judicially and on relevant facts when deciding whether to accept security for stay of tax and penalty. An assessee's offer of immovable property security could not be rejected merely by insisting on bank guarantee alone without examining title, encumbrance, adequacy, or recording reasons. The authority's failure to consider the alternative security and to justify its refusal made the insistence on bank guarantee arbitrary. The impugned orders were set aside and the stay/security applications were directed to be reconsidered in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150076