https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354892 The Tribunal's discretion on pre-deposit was upheld because it limited itself to admission of the second appeals and stay, without examining the merits of the assessments. Since the dealer had already paid the entire tax in the second appeals, the Tribunal treated that payment as sufficient pre-deposit and stayed recovery until disposal of the first appeals. Interference with such discretion is warranted only where it is arbitrary or lacks application of mind, and no such infirmity was shown. The order was therefore found to be reasonable, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 07:38:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354892 The Tribunal's discretion on pre-deposit was upheld because it limited itself to admission of the second appeals and stay, without examining the merits of the assessments. Since the dealer had already paid the entire tax in the second appeals, the Tribunal treated that payment as sufficient pre-deposit and stayed recovery until disposal of the first appeals. Interference with such discretion is warranted only where it is arbitrary or lacks application of mind, and no such infirmity was shown. The order was therefore found to be reasonable, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354892