<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (4) TMI 1345 - TELANGANA &amp; ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278661</link>
    <description>The High Court modified the Additional Commissioner&#039;s order to prevent coercive recovery steps until the appeal was resolved, requiring the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks. The court also directed that the petitioner should receive credit for any tax already paid. The decision was influenced by a Supreme Court order in a different case mandating a 25% tax deposit for stay petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2019 06:27:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=558158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1345 - TELANGANA &amp; ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278661</link>
      <description>The High Court modified the Additional Commissioner&#039;s order to prevent coercive recovery steps until the appeal was resolved, requiring the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks. The court also directed that the petitioner should receive credit for any tax already paid. The decision was influenced by a Supreme Court order in a different case mandating a 25% tax deposit for stay petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>