https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182664 The Court admitted the writ petition challenging service tax demand confirmation but refused interim relief. The petitioner was given three months to deposit dues to prevent coercive actions. A confusion arose over "dues" and "demand," and the validity of a recovery notice based on a quashed circular was contested. Despite reliance on a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Court allowed recovery proceedings due to the petitioner's failure to deposit dues. The Court emphasized that filing an appeal does not automatically stay orders under appeal, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merit and ruling in favor of the respondent. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 May 2016 21:48:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182664 The Court admitted the writ petition challenging service tax demand confirmation but refused interim relief. The petitioner was given three months to deposit dues to prevent coercive actions. A confusion arose over "dues" and "demand," and the validity of a recovery notice based on a quashed circular was contested. Despite reliance on a Rajasthan High Court judgment, the Court allowed recovery proceedings due to the petitioner's failure to deposit dues. The Court emphasized that filing an appeal does not automatically stay orders under appeal, dismissing the writ petition for lack of merit and ruling in favor of the respondent. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182664