https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259577 A pre-deposit could not be ordered against a quantified tax demand when the first appellate authority had remanded the assessment for de novo determination of quantum. The remand meant the liability was still unadjudicated and the alleged demand was not presently due and payable, so directing deposit of 25% of the disputed amount proceeded on an incorrect assumption of enforceable recovery. The court held that the distinction between waiver of pre-deposit and a direction to deposit tax not yet finally determined was material, and the direction was therefore unjustified. The question of law was answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. en-us Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2015 06:20:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259577 A pre-deposit could not be ordered against a quantified tax demand when the first appellate authority had remanded the assessment for de novo determination of quantum. The remand meant the liability was still unadjudicated and the alleged demand was not presently due and payable, so directing deposit of 25% of the disputed amount proceeded on an incorrect assumption of enforceable recovery. The court held that the distinction between waiver of pre-deposit and a direction to deposit tax not yet finally determined was material, and the direction was therefore unjustified. The question of law was answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 16 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259577