<?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>2000 (7) TMI 938 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160562</link>
    <description>The right of appeal under the taxing statutes was conditional on payment of the assessed tax, and total waiver of pre-deposit could be granted only on recorded satisfaction that the dealer was unable to pay. At the exemption stage, the authority was not required to examine the merits of the assessment in depth. Since the appellate authority considered the petitioner&#039;s financial position, including its running business and substantial turnover, and declined complete waiver, the Tribunal was justified in agreeing and only modifying the instalment terms. The challenge alleging non-consideration of hardship and absence of a speaking order therefore failed, and refusal of total exemption from pre-deposit was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:04:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 938 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160562</link>
      <description>The right of appeal under the taxing statutes was conditional on payment of the assessed tax, and total waiver of pre-deposit could be granted only on recorded satisfaction that the dealer was unable to pay. At the exemption stage, the authority was not required to examine the merits of the assessment in depth. Since the appellate authority considered the petitioner&#039;s financial position, including its running business and substantial turnover, and declined complete waiver, the Tribunal was justified in agreeing and only modifying the instalment terms. The challenge alleging non-consideration of hardship and absence of a speaking order therefore failed, and refusal of total exemption from pre-deposit was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>