https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168985 Writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 was declined against orders requiring a 25% pre-deposit under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 before entertaining the statutory challenge to the tax demand. The Court noted the belated approach to writ remedy, the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay, and that liability had been fastened on detected suppressed purchase turnover, with tax, penalty, and interest determined on that basis. In these circumstances, it found no sufficient ground to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and left the pre-deposit requirement undisturbed. en-us Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2015 20:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168985 Writ interference under Articles 226 and 227 was declined against orders requiring a 25% pre-deposit under Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 before entertaining the statutory challenge to the tax demand. The Court noted the belated approach to writ remedy, the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay, and that liability had been fastened on detected suppressed purchase turnover, with tax, penalty, and interest determined on that basis. In these circumstances, it found no sufficient ground to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and left the pre-deposit requirement undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168985