<?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>2013 (3) TMI 109 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221342</link>
    <description>Interim protection was granted against deposit of interest on disputed differential tax during pendency of the appeal because the matter concerned classification of goods and the applicable tax rate, not tax evasion. The petitioner had already deposited the differential tax under protest, and the refusal of stay by the Tax Board was non-speaking and did not reflect a reasoned exercise of discretion. The Court balanced the bona fide nature of the dispute and the petitioner&#039;s status as a regular business against the demand for interim relief, and also accepted the request for early hearing. The appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 109 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221342</link>
      <description>Interim protection was granted against deposit of interest on disputed differential tax during pendency of the appeal because the matter concerned classification of goods and the applicable tax rate, not tax evasion. The petitioner had already deposited the differential tax under protest, and the refusal of stay by the Tax Board was non-speaking and did not reflect a reasoned exercise of discretion. The Court balanced the bona fide nature of the dispute and the petitioner&#039;s status as a regular business against the demand for interim relief, and also accepted the request for early hearing. The appeal was directed to be decided expeditiously.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>