<?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>2015 (3) TMI 696 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257762</link>
    <description>Pending revision applications and second appeals over levy of motor spirit tax surcharge, the Court held that interim recovery need not remain conditional on deposit where the dispute raises a substantive question on the charging provision and related rules. The assessee&#039;s public sector character and the absence of any demonstrated risk that dues would become unrecoverable justified replacing the cash deposit requirement with an unconditional stay of recovery. Revenue protection was preserved by requiring an undertaking to deposit the demand, with interest and surcharge, if the final decision went against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2015 10:23:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 696 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257762</link>
      <description>Pending revision applications and second appeals over levy of motor spirit tax surcharge, the Court held that interim recovery need not remain conditional on deposit where the dispute raises a substantive question on the charging provision and related rules. The assessee&#039;s public sector character and the absence of any demonstrated risk that dues would become unrecoverable justified replacing the cash deposit requirement with an unconditional stay of recovery. Revenue protection was preserved by requiring an undertaking to deposit the demand, with interest and surcharge, if the final decision went against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257762</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>