https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163443 A first appeal under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was treated as maintainable only on proof of payment of the admitted tax, making deposit a condition precedent for entertainment of the appeal. The authorities found that no admitted tax, or instalment under the State deferment arrangement, had been paid, so the appeal could not proceed. Protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not override this requirement, because that protection was relevant to coercive recovery proceedings and not to the statutory threshold for filing the appeal. The recall application therefore failed for non-compliance with the deposit condition. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:24:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163443 A first appeal under section 9(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was treated as maintainable only on proof of payment of the admitted tax, making deposit a condition precedent for entertainment of the appeal. The authorities found that no admitted tax, or instalment under the State deferment arrangement, had been paid, so the appeal could not proceed. Protection under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not override this requirement, because that protection was relevant to coercive recovery proceedings and not to the statutory threshold for filing the appeal. The recall application therefore failed for non-compliance with the deposit condition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163443