https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328947 Pendency of proceedings before the BIFR or appellate authority under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not automatically suspend the pre-deposit requirement attached to maintainability of an appeal under section 73(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, because that condition is not itself a recovery, execution, or distress proceeding within section 22(1). The High Court also held that while some pre-deposit was justified given the assessee's earlier non-appearance, the Tribunal's insistence on 25% of the tax demand was too onerous in the circumstances. The pre-deposit condition was therefore upheld in principle but reduced, and the appeals were to be revived and decided on merits after compliance. en-us Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:21:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328947 Pendency of proceedings before the BIFR or appellate authority under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not automatically suspend the pre-deposit requirement attached to maintainability of an appeal under section 73(4) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, because that condition is not itself a recovery, execution, or distress proceeding within section 22(1). The High Court also held that while some pre-deposit was justified given the assessee's earlier non-appearance, the Tribunal's insistence on 25% of the tax demand was too onerous in the circumstances. The pre-deposit condition was therefore upheld in principle but reduced, and the appeals were to be revived and decided on merits after compliance. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328947