https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274269 A taxpayer who had opted for and been granted compounding under the VAT Act could not avoid the resulting tax liability by relying on a stop memo and alleged non-production, because the obligation arose from the elected compounding scheme itself; the challenge to the demand notices was therefore rejected. The court also modified the payment arrangement for the admitted liability, directing instalments from 1 July 2017 and keeping recovery in abeyance so long as payments were made regularly, with liberty to proceed on default. The merits challenge failed, but the instalment schedule was adjusted in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Aug 2018 08:25:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274269 A taxpayer who had opted for and been granted compounding under the VAT Act could not avoid the resulting tax liability by relying on a stop memo and alleged non-production, because the obligation arose from the elected compounding scheme itself; the challenge to the demand notices was therefore rejected. The court also modified the payment arrangement for the admitted liability, directing instalments from 1 July 2017 and keeping recovery in abeyance so long as payments were made regularly, with liberty to proceed on default. The merits challenge failed, but the instalment schedule was adjusted in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274269