https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259623 An appellate authority's interlocutory condition requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding demand for an interim stay was upheld because it was imposed after considering the merits and surrounding proceedings. The court held that writ interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible; interference lies only if the discretion is shown to be improper, arbitrary, or perverse. The challenge to the stay condition therefore failed, although additional time was granted to comply with the deposit requirement and obtain the interim stay. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2015 08:07:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259623 An appellate authority's interlocutory condition requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding demand for an interim stay was upheld because it was imposed after considering the merits and surrounding proceedings. The court held that writ interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible; interference lies only if the discretion is shown to be improper, arbitrary, or perverse. The challenge to the stay condition therefore failed, although additional time was granted to comply with the deposit requirement and obtain the interim stay. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 15 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259623