https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162960 A writ of mandamus was held not to lie to restrain recovery proceedings or compel consideration of an instalment request under Rule 20A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, because the request was only for a discretionary concession and not an enforceable right. The pendency of an instalment application or appeal did not by itself operate as a stay of recovery, and the petitioner could not use that proceeding to challenge the underlying tax liability. The earlier order relied on was treated as fact-specific and not binding precedent. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable for the relief sought, and restraint on recovery was declined. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2014 14:22:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162960 A writ of mandamus was held not to lie to restrain recovery proceedings or compel consideration of an instalment request under Rule 20A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, because the request was only for a discretionary concession and not an enforceable right. The pendency of an instalment application or appeal did not by itself operate as a stay of recovery, and the petitioner could not use that proceeding to challenge the underlying tax liability. The earlier order relied on was treated as fact-specific and not binding precedent. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable for the relief sought, and restraint on recovery was declined. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162960