https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167909 Where a dealer has invoked the statutory settlement mechanism for disputed tax dues, coercive recovery should ordinarily remain in abeyance until the application is decided, while any undisputed liability may still be required to be paid. The Madhya Pradesh HC noted that the scheme under sections 24B and 24C provides for settlement of disputed tax, interest and penalty through a prescribed determination process, and it treated pending settlement proceedings as a basis to protect the dealer from recovery action. The settlement authority was also directed to decide the application within a fixed outer limit. en-us Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167909 Where a dealer has invoked the statutory settlement mechanism for disputed tax dues, coercive recovery should ordinarily remain in abeyance until the application is decided, while any undisputed liability may still be required to be paid. The Madhya Pradesh HC noted that the scheme under sections 24B and 24C provides for settlement of disputed tax, interest and penalty through a prescribed determination process, and it treated pending settlement proceedings as a basis to protect the dealer from recovery action. The settlement authority was also directed to decide the application within a fixed outer limit. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167909