https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366562 Under Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, stay of 70% of the disputed demand follows payment of 30% with the appeal, and that clause does not expressly empower the appellate authority to insist on an irrevocable bank guarantee for the balance. The security requirement was sought to be justified through Section 62(4)(c)(ii), but that deeming provision applies only where the stay application is not disposed of within thirty days and deemed stay arises. Because the application had been considered within time, clause (i) governed and the additional guarantee condition was unsustainable and set aside. en-us Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:06:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366562 Under Section 62(4)(c)(i) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, stay of 70% of the disputed demand follows payment of 30% with the appeal, and that clause does not expressly empower the appellate authority to insist on an irrevocable bank guarantee for the balance. The security requirement was sought to be justified through Section 62(4)(c)(ii), but that deeming provision applies only where the stay application is not disposed of within thirty days and deemed stay arises. Because the application had been considered within time, clause (i) governed and the additional guarantee condition was unsustainable and set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 18 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366562