https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328793 The assessment rejecting tax deferment under the Final Eligibility Certificate was sustained because the authority had not finally concluded the alleged breach of eligibility conditions, although coercive recovery was restrained for a limited period. The consequential penalty under Rule 25(5) was set aside because it depended on the same unresolved compliance issue, and a penalty cannot stand until the competent authority first decides that question after notice and hearing. Liberty was reserved to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after that decision is communicated. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:14:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328793 The assessment rejecting tax deferment under the Final Eligibility Certificate was sustained because the authority had not finally concluded the alleged breach of eligibility conditions, although coercive recovery was restrained for a limited period. The consequential penalty under Rule 25(5) was set aside because it depended on the same unresolved compliance issue, and a penalty cannot stand until the competent authority first decides that question after notice and hearing. Liberty was reserved to initiate fresh penalty proceedings after that decision is communicated. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328793