https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432889 The HC held that, where the petitioner had already deposited 25% of the disputed tax to maintain the statutory appeal and a broader legal issue was pending consideration, insisting on further payment as a condition for stay of recovery was unjustified. The court interfered with the additional payment requirement, set it aside, and stayed recovery under the revisional order during pendency of the appeal to preserve the subject matter in dispute. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2023 06:28:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432889 The HC held that, where the petitioner had already deposited 25% of the disputed tax to maintain the statutory appeal and a broader legal issue was pending consideration, insisting on further payment as a condition for stay of recovery was unjustified. The court interfered with the additional payment requirement, set it aside, and stayed recovery under the revisional order during pendency of the appeal to preserve the subject matter in dispute. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432889