<?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 (5) TMI 417 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259543</link>
    <description>Pari materia interim relief was declined where the tribunal had granted stay after a prima facie assessment and required deposit of the taxable component with interest to protect revenue. The Court held that similarity in nomenclature with another case did not establish identity of facts, because the amounts here arose from a contractual arrangement linked to the bus terminus, not statutory fees. In the absence of illegality, irregularity, or material showing undue hardship, a later request to modify or review the stay order could not succeed merely because a different interim view had been taken elsewhere. The pre-deposit direction was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 417 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259543</link>
      <description>Pari materia interim relief was declined where the tribunal had granted stay after a prima facie assessment and required deposit of the taxable component with interest to protect revenue. The Court held that similarity in nomenclature with another case did not establish identity of facts, because the amounts here arose from a contractual arrangement linked to the bus terminus, not statutory fees. In the absence of illegality, irregularity, or material showing undue hardship, a later request to modify or review the stay order could not succeed merely because a different interim view had been taken elsewhere. The pre-deposit direction was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>