https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337831 A Supreme Court interim order confined to an earlier assessment period could not be treated as a blanket bar on recovery for later periods, especially where the subsequent assessment was not before the Supreme Court and an earlier Division Bench ruling upholding levy under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act remained operative. The contention that all future recovery was stayed was rejected. In an intra-court appeal against interim relief, the Single Judge's discretion was not shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous, and a condition requiring deposit of 50% of the tax demand was held to be a balanced arrangement. The appeals therefore failed and the interim order was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Jan 2017 08:28:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337831 A Supreme Court interim order confined to an earlier assessment period could not be treated as a blanket bar on recovery for later periods, especially where the subsequent assessment was not before the Supreme Court and an earlier Division Bench ruling upholding levy under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act remained operative. The contention that all future recovery was stayed was rejected. In an intra-court appeal against interim relief, the Single Judge's discretion was not shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous, and a condition requiring deposit of 50% of the tax demand was held to be a balanced arrangement. The appeals therefore failed and the interim order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337831