https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369443 A reasoned interim order imposing a 25% pre-deposit as a condition for stay in a debatable classification dispute was upheld in writ jurisdiction, because the Tribunal had considered the rival submissions and acted within its discretion under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The High Court found no perversity, procedural unfairness, or other basis to interfere under Article 226. Relief based on financial hardship was refused because that plea had not been advanced before the Tribunal and no subsequent change in financial position was shown. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:39:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369443 A reasoned interim order imposing a 25% pre-deposit as a condition for stay in a debatable classification dispute was upheld in writ jurisdiction, because the Tribunal had considered the rival submissions and acted within its discretion under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The High Court found no perversity, procedural unfairness, or other basis to interfere under Article 226. Relief based on financial hardship was refused because that plea had not been advanced before the Tribunal and no subsequent change in financial position was shown. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369443