<?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>2006 (4) TMI 488 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163350</link>
    <description>Interim stay of tax recovery depends on the assessee showing tenable grounds and a prima facie case against the assessment. Where the assessee failed to file the annual return, produce books of account, respond to the pre-assessment notice, or substantiate the returned turnover, the best-judgment assessment and the conditional stay requiring partial payment and security were treated as a proper exercise of discretion. Allegations of misplaced records and financial hardship were insufficient for a blanket stay, and the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 because the stay order was neither mechanical nor arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:04:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 488 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163350</link>
      <description>Interim stay of tax recovery depends on the assessee showing tenable grounds and a prima facie case against the assessment. Where the assessee failed to file the annual return, produce books of account, respond to the pre-assessment notice, or substantiate the returned turnover, the best-judgment assessment and the conditional stay requiring partial payment and security were treated as a proper exercise of discretion. Allegations of misplaced records and financial hardship were insufficient for a blanket stay, and the High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 because the stay order was neither mechanical nor arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>