https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340299 The court found the orders directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand legally unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and failure to consider genuine hardship. It clarified that Circular No.1914 was not entirely superseded by a later Circular, emphasizing the need to assess if orders caused genuine hardship. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the challenged orders and directing expedited resolution of pending appeals for specified assessment years. The case was remanded for reconsideration with a strict timeline for review, and the Revenue was barred from taking coercive action during the process. en-us Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2026 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340299 The court found the orders directing the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand legally unsustainable due to lack of reasoning and failure to consider genuine hardship. It clarified that Circular No.1914 was not entirely superseded by a later Circular, emphasizing the need to assess if orders caused genuine hardship. The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the challenged orders and directing expedited resolution of pending appeals for specified assessment years. The case was remanded for reconsideration with a strict timeline for review, and the Revenue was barred from taking coercive action during the process. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340299