https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291868 Where the assessee challenged the continued assessment and recovery proceedings on limitation grounds under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, the Court held that full interim protection was warranted to preserve the appellate remedy. It found that a 90% stay would not adequately safeguard the disputed demand during pendency of the first appeal. Recovery of the demand was therefore stayed until disposal of the appeal or for four months, whichever was earlier, and the appeal was directed to be decided within a fixed time. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:15:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291868 Where the assessee challenged the continued assessment and recovery proceedings on limitation grounds under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, the Court held that full interim protection was warranted to preserve the appellate remedy. It found that a 90% stay would not adequately safeguard the disputed demand during pendency of the first appeal. Recovery of the demand was therefore stayed until disposal of the appeal or for four months, whichever was earlier, and the appeal was directed to be decided within a fixed time. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 06 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291868