https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154827 Orders declining stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals and directing payment of the disputed amounts in instalments were quashed because the petitioner had already furnished immovable property security covering the entire disputed liability. The Court held that the revenue's interest was adequately protected and that refusal of stay, together with insistence on instalments, failed to apply the governing principles for grant of stay and amounted to an improper exercise of discretion. Recovery of the disputed amounts was therefore restrained pending disposal of the appeals. en-us Mon, 02 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:11:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154827 Orders declining stay of recovery during the pendency of appeals and directing payment of the disputed amounts in instalments were quashed because the petitioner had already furnished immovable property security covering the entire disputed liability. The Court held that the revenue's interest was adequately protected and that refusal of stay, together with insistence on instalments, failed to apply the governing principles for grant of stay and amounted to an improper exercise of discretion. Recovery of the disputed amounts was therefore restrained pending disposal of the appeals. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 02 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154827