<?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>1996 (6) TMI 342 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160313</link>
    <description>Section 22(6) requires tax to be paid according to the assessment, but its first proviso preserves the High Court&#039;s discretion to permit instalments and issue other payment directions. Section 22(6-A) bars a stay of payment pending revision, yet does not extinguish that discretionary power. Read harmoniously, the High Court may grant limited interim relief in special circumstances, including a stay in exceptional cases to avoid grave miscarriage of justice, but the power must be exercised sparingly. On the stated facts, concurrent adverse findings, no grave hardship, and no shown miscarriage of justice meant a complete stay was not justified; instalment relief alone was appropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:51:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 342 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160313</link>
      <description>Section 22(6) requires tax to be paid according to the assessment, but its first proviso preserves the High Court&#039;s discretion to permit instalments and issue other payment directions. Section 22(6-A) bars a stay of payment pending revision, yet does not extinguish that discretionary power. Read harmoniously, the High Court may grant limited interim relief in special circumstances, including a stay in exceptional cases to avoid grave miscarriage of justice, but the power must be exercised sparingly. On the stated facts, concurrent adverse findings, no grave hardship, and no shown miscarriage of justice meant a complete stay was not justified; instalment relief alone was appropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>