<?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>1990 (6) TMI 209 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156349</link>
    <description>A stay application in tax recovery must be decided on relevant factors, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, likely injury to both sides, and the assessee&#039;s financial hardship. An order need not be elaborate, but it must show application of mind to the material issues. Where the authority focuses unduly on instalments and fails to address taxability and hardship, the stay order is unsustainable and calls for fresh reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:42:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (6) TMI 209 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156349</link>
      <description>A stay application in tax recovery must be decided on relevant factors, including prima facie case, balance of convenience, likely injury to both sides, and the assessee&#039;s financial hardship. An order need not be elaborate, but it must show application of mind to the material issues. Where the authority focuses unduly on instalments and fails to address taxability and hardship, the stay order is unsustainable and calls for fresh reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>