https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372240 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, in penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2009-2010. The appellate authority's order requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand and provide security for the remaining balance was challenged in a writ petition. The court found that the proviso under section 55(4) of the KVAT Act mandated only remitting 20% of the disputed tax to stay proceedings, without the need for additional security like a solvency certificate. Consequently, the court modified the order, eliminating the security requirement and ruling in favor of the petitioner. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 06:10:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372240 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a registered dealer under the KVAT Act, in penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2009-2010. The appellate authority's order requiring the petitioner to pay 20% of the demand and provide security for the remaining balance was challenged in a writ petition. The court found that the proviso under section 55(4) of the KVAT Act mandated only remitting 20% of the disputed tax to stay proceedings, without the need for additional security like a solvency certificate. Consequently, the court modified the order, eliminating the security requirement and ruling in favor of the petitioner. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372240