<?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>1989 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42610</link>
    <description>A discretionary pre-deposit order in tax proceedings will not ordinarily be interfered with in judicial review unless it is shown to rest on irrelevant considerations or a manifest error. In the discussed matter, the Tribunal had considered the demand, the assessee&#039;s financial difficulty, and the relation between assets and liabilities, so the pre-deposit direction was left undisturbed, with time extended for compliance. The document also notes that a request to send tread rubber for chemical analysis was material to the controversy and had to be considered afresh by the Tribunal after hearing the petitioner, because relevant evidence affecting the merits cannot be left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:10:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42610</link>
      <description>A discretionary pre-deposit order in tax proceedings will not ordinarily be interfered with in judicial review unless it is shown to rest on irrelevant considerations or a manifest error. In the discussed matter, the Tribunal had considered the demand, the assessee&#039;s financial difficulty, and the relation between assets and liabilities, so the pre-deposit direction was left undisturbed, with time extended for compliance. The document also notes that a request to send tread rubber for chemical analysis was material to the controversy and had to be considered afresh by the Tribunal after hearing the petitioner, because relevant evidence affecting the merits cannot be left undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>