https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208902 A strong prima facie case supported by binding precedent justified broader interim stay protection, and financial hardship could not be used to curtail relief where the governing law had already been settled. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had limited the stay to 80% of the disputed demand despite an earlier ruling treating mosquito coils as insecticides taxable at 4% under the U.P. VAT Act. It held that the alleged turnover increase from undisclosed transactions was nominal and did not justify restricting protection. The stay order was therefore modified, subject to deposit and security conditions, and the matter was disposed of on those revised terms. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208902 A strong prima facie case supported by binding precedent justified broader interim stay protection, and financial hardship could not be used to curtail relief where the governing law had already been settled. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had limited the stay to 80% of the disputed demand despite an earlier ruling treating mosquito coils as insecticides taxable at 4% under the U.P. VAT Act. It held that the alleged turnover increase from undisclosed transactions was nominal and did not justify restricting protection. The stay order was therefore modified, subject to deposit and security conditions, and the matter was disposed of on those revised terms. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208902