https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413755 Section 33(6) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act was confined to stay applications in appeals against orders or proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner under Sections 21 or 32, so it did not extend to an appeal from the first appellate authority under Section 31; the authority therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the stay request. At the same time, the Act did not expressly bar interim protection in a second appeal where no prior stay was operating, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be used to preserve the subject matter when the appellant showed a strong arguable case. On that basis, stay of collection of the disputed balance was held justified pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Sep 2022 12:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413755 Section 33(6) of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act was confined to stay applications in appeals against orders or proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner under Sections 21 or 32, so it did not extend to an appeal from the first appellate authority under Section 31; the authority therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the stay request. At the same time, the Act did not expressly bar interim protection in a second appeal where no prior stay was operating, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be used to preserve the subject matter when the appellant showed a strong arguable case. On that basis, stay of collection of the disputed balance was held justified pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413755