https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189577 The phrase "future period" in the interim order was construed to cover only liability arising after 18 January 2012, not assessments for earlier years merely because the assessment order was passed later. The court held that tax demand relating to a prior assessment year remained within the accrued tax liability regime, where the required arrangement was 50% cash deposit and the balance secured by bank guarantee. As the petitioners had already complied with that requirement for the relevant year, the later demand for additional interest was based on an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court's order and was unsustainable. The impugned demand was quashed. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189577 The phrase "future period" in the interim order was construed to cover only liability arising after 18 January 2012, not assessments for earlier years merely because the assessment order was passed later. The court held that tax demand relating to a prior assessment year remained within the accrued tax liability regime, where the required arrangement was 50% cash deposit and the balance secured by bank guarantee. As the petitioners had already complied with that requirement for the relevant year, the later demand for additional interest was based on an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court's order and was unsustainable. The impugned demand was quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189577