<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1402 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460106</link>
    <description>A stay condition requiring deposit of 20% of the assessed tax demand was upheld as lawful where the appellate authority found, on a prima facie basis, that the assessee had not produced documents to justify concessional tax treatment. The challenge failed because the partial deposit requirement was imposed in light of the substantial tax liability and the absence of substantiating material for the claimed concessional rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=788067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1402 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460106</link>
      <description>A stay condition requiring deposit of 20% of the assessed tax demand was upheld as lawful where the appellate authority found, on a prima facie basis, that the assessee had not produced documents to justify concessional tax treatment. The challenge failed because the partial deposit requirement was imposed in light of the substantial tax liability and the absence of substantiating material for the claimed concessional rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>