https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329400 A writ court declined to interfere with refusal to stay recovery of disputed sales tax because the assessee had not first sought stay before the appellate authority under the statutory scheme. In the absence of any refusal of stay under Section 19(2-A), revisional power under Section 19(2-B) was not triggered. The Court also held that allegations of non-service under Rule 58 could not be examined in the writ petition while the statutory appeal on merits remained pending before the Tribunal. Given the discretionary nature of Article 226 relief, the assessee's delay and failure to pursue the available remedies justified refusal of interference. en-us Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329400 A writ court declined to interfere with refusal to stay recovery of disputed sales tax because the assessee had not first sought stay before the appellate authority under the statutory scheme. In the absence of any refusal of stay under Section 19(2-A), revisional power under Section 19(2-B) was not triggered. The Court also held that allegations of non-service under Rule 58 could not be examined in the writ petition while the statutory appeal on merits remained pending before the Tribunal. Given the discretionary nature of Article 226 relief, the assessee's delay and failure to pursue the available remedies justified refusal of interference. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329400