https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442150 The AP VAT Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a stay application first moved before it, because the statutory scheme for stay operated through the first appellate authority, continuance of an existing stay, or a revision against refusal, and Section 33(6)(b) restricted stay of tax and penalty at the tribunal stage. The High Court, however, retained writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant interim protection where recovery proceedings were pending, and it granted conditional stay of recovery in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:20:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442150 The AP VAT Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a stay application first moved before it, because the statutory scheme for stay operated through the first appellate authority, continuance of an existing stay, or a revision against refusal, and Section 33(6)(b) restricted stay of tax and penalty at the tribunal stage. The High Court, however, retained writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant interim protection where recovery proceedings were pending, and it granted conditional stay of recovery in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442150