https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162445 An appeal against an assessment order was treated as subject to the statutory pre-condition in section 9(1-B)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, requiring proof of payment of the tax admitted in the return or otherwise payable during the proceedings, whichever was greater. The text explains that a dealer could not bypass this requirement by claiming a concessional rate where C or D forms had not been furnished for part of the turnover, because the higher tax liability then became relevant to the pre-deposit condition. Since the required forms were not produced even before the Tribunal, the appeal was held not maintainable for non-compliance with the statutory prerequisite. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:03:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162445 An appeal against an assessment order was treated as subject to the statutory pre-condition in section 9(1-B)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, requiring proof of payment of the tax admitted in the return or otherwise payable during the proceedings, whichever was greater. The text explains that a dealer could not bypass this requirement by claiming a concessional rate where C or D forms had not been furnished for part of the turnover, because the higher tax liability then became relevant to the pre-deposit condition. Since the required forms were not produced even before the Tribunal, the appeal was held not maintainable for non-compliance with the statutory prerequisite. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162445