https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327453 The writ appeals concerned whether an interim recovery order should be modified where the assessee contended that a concluded reassessment could not be reopened under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. The Court noted that the jurisdictional question whether a concluded assessment could be reopened remained pending before the single judge, and that the interim arrangement should have reflected that substantial issue. Although stay against tax recovery is not ordinarily granted, the peculiar facts justified modification of the protection. The interim order was modified, with stay of recovery subject to a bank guarantee for 30% of the demand and an undertaking for the balance. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2016 11:45:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327453 The writ appeals concerned whether an interim recovery order should be modified where the assessee contended that a concluded reassessment could not be reopened under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. The Court noted that the jurisdictional question whether a concluded assessment could be reopened remained pending before the single judge, and that the interim arrangement should have reflected that substantial issue. Although stay against tax recovery is not ordinarily granted, the peculiar facts justified modification of the protection. The interim order was modified, with stay of recovery subject to a bank guarantee for 30% of the demand and an undertaking for the balance. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327453