https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414391 Pendency of a constitutional challenge to the entry tax enactment did not, by itself, require complete stay of tax recovery, because no stay of recovery had been granted and the authority retained discretion over interim relief. Reliance on Section 53(8) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was permissible at the second appellate stage, as the legality of the partial stay order was under scrutiny within the appellate framework. The direction to deposit 40% of the demand was also upheld, the plea of financial hardship being insufficient to displace the discretionary assessment made by the appellate authorities. en-us Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:59:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414391 Pendency of a constitutional challenge to the entry tax enactment did not, by itself, require complete stay of tax recovery, because no stay of recovery had been granted and the authority retained discretion over interim relief. Reliance on Section 53(8) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was permissible at the second appellate stage, as the legality of the partial stay order was under scrutiny within the appellate framework. The direction to deposit 40% of the demand was also upheld, the plea of financial hardship being insufficient to displace the discretionary assessment made by the appellate authorities. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414391