<?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 293 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221527</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision of the first respondent-appellate authority to reduce the pre-deposit amount required for filing an appeal, from Rs. 47,93,469 to Rs. 4 lakhs. The petitioner&#039;s arguments of undue hardship and non-reimbursable pre-deposit were dismissed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Act. The court highlighted the importance of considering financial burden and undue hardship but found the reduced amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to be reasonable. The Writ Petition challenging the pre-deposit order was dismissed, directing the petitioner to pay and pursue contentions during the appeal process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194880" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 293 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221527</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision of the first respondent-appellate authority to reduce the pre-deposit amount required for filing an appeal, from Rs. 47,93,469 to Rs. 4 lakhs. The petitioner&#039;s arguments of undue hardship and non-reimbursable pre-deposit were dismissed, emphasizing the mandatory nature of pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the Act. The court highlighted the importance of considering financial burden and undue hardship but found the reduced amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to be reasonable. The Writ Petition challenging the pre-deposit order was dismissed, directing the petitioner to pay and pursue contentions during the appeal process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>