https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428108 The Madras HC held that a dealership clause allowing the corporation to demand deposits or security for sums due was enforceable against dealers facing possible differential sales tax exposure from withheld C Forms. Because the bank guarantee requirement was a contractual safeguard against contingent fiscal liability under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007, mandamus could not be issued to restrain its invocation absent illegality. The challenge to the demand was rejected, while the court noted that individual dealers could seek waiver on a case-by-case basis where hardship arose. en-us Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Sep 2022 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428108 The Madras HC held that a dealership clause allowing the corporation to demand deposits or security for sums due was enforceable against dealers facing possible differential sales tax exposure from withheld C Forms. Because the bank guarantee requirement was a contractual safeguard against contingent fiscal liability under the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007, mandamus could not be issued to restrain its invocation absent illegality. The challenge to the demand was rejected, while the court noted that individual dealers could seek waiver on a case-by-case basis where hardship arose. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428108