https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466479 Court refused permission to substitute a bank guarantee for a cash deposit of Rs.60 crore in tax recovery proceedings, relying on established fiscal principles that prefer liquid cash over guarantees. The court declined to relax the usual deposit rule, noting a prior reduction in deposit and finding no basis for further concession. It emphasised Supreme Court authority that unconditional stays and interim relief by bank guarantee are inappropriate in public revenue matters because government functioning requires realisable funds and interim relief demands a clear balance of convenience and absence of prejudice to public interest. The bank guarantee request was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Feb 2026 16:25:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466479 Court refused permission to substitute a bank guarantee for a cash deposit of Rs.60 crore in tax recovery proceedings, relying on established fiscal principles that prefer liquid cash over guarantees. The court declined to relax the usual deposit rule, noting a prior reduction in deposit and finding no basis for further concession. It emphasised Supreme Court authority that unconditional stays and interim relief by bank guarantee are inappropriate in public revenue matters because government functioning requires realisable funds and interim relief demands a clear balance of convenience and absence of prejudice to public interest. The bank guarantee request was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466479