https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364496 The appellant sought interference with the judgment directing a deposit amount, which was reduced from the Tribunal's order. The Court rejected the proposal of offering properties as security due to valuation discrepancies. Despite arguments on revenue protection, the Court emphasized the need for cash deposits. A discrepancy in property valuation and market value was noted, giving the appellant time to comply with the deposit requirement. The Court closed the writ appeal pending compliance within three months, after which the appeal would be considered on its merits. en-us Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364496 The appellant sought interference with the judgment directing a deposit amount, which was reduced from the Tribunal's order. The Court rejected the proposal of offering properties as security due to valuation discrepancies. Despite arguments on revenue protection, the Court emphasized the need for cash deposits. A discrepancy in property valuation and market value was noted, giving the appellant time to comply with the deposit requirement. The Court closed the writ appeal pending compliance within three months, after which the appeal would be considered on its merits. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364496