<?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>2011 (9) TMI 915 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167988</link>
    <description>The High Court addressed six trade tax revisions in a single judgment, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision to grant an 80% stay of the disputed amount based on the Supreme Court&#039;s K. Raheja Development Corporation case. Despite doubts raised by another Division Bench, the court affirmed the judgment&#039;s validity unless overruled by a Larger Bench. The court found the assessee&#039;s case not exceptionally strong regarding the prima facie case and financial hardship assessment. A 20% deposit of the disputed amount was required within two weeks, failing which would result in the loss of benefits. All revisions were disposed of as per the Tribunal&#039;s decision with the specified modification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 915 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167988</link>
      <description>The High Court addressed six trade tax revisions in a single judgment, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision to grant an 80% stay of the disputed amount based on the Supreme Court&#039;s K. Raheja Development Corporation case. Despite doubts raised by another Division Bench, the court affirmed the judgment&#039;s validity unless overruled by a Larger Bench. The court found the assessee&#039;s case not exceptionally strong regarding the prima facie case and financial hardship assessment. A 20% deposit of the disputed amount was required within two weeks, failing which would result in the loss of benefits. All revisions were disposed of as per the Tribunal&#039;s decision with the specified modification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>