<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (2) TMI 192 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449041</link>
    <description>The statutory scheme under Section 8(1) for extending time to pay assessed demand operates independently from the pre-deposit under Section 11(1) for appeal entertainability. The proviso to Section 8(1) allows only extension of payment time, while Section 11(1) separately requires deposit of the prescribed portion of assessed tax and penalty before an appeal can be entertained. The explanation to Section 11(1) does not permit waiver or deferment of that pre-deposit merely because time is sought under Section 8. The Commissioner&#039;s refusal to extend time under Section 8(1) therefore did not excuse compliance with Section 11(1), and the petitioner&#039;s lack of supporting material further weakened any claim for writ interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 08:42:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 192 - JAMMU &amp; KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449041</link>
      <description>The statutory scheme under Section 8(1) for extending time to pay assessed demand operates independently from the pre-deposit under Section 11(1) for appeal entertainability. The proviso to Section 8(1) allows only extension of payment time, while Section 11(1) separately requires deposit of the prescribed portion of assessed tax and penalty before an appeal can be entertained. The explanation to Section 11(1) does not permit waiver or deferment of that pre-deposit merely because time is sought under Section 8. The Commissioner&#039;s refusal to extend time under Section 8(1) therefore did not excuse compliance with Section 11(1), and the petitioner&#039;s lack of supporting material further weakened any claim for writ interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>