This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Section 112(8)(b) contemplate sum equal to 20% of remaining amount of tax in dispute: HC
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Sandeep, Proprietor, Madhukar Sangam Jewellers Vs State Tax officer (Kerala High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Kerala High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Sandeep, Proprietor, Madhukar Sangam Jewellers Vs State Tax officer (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court recalls interim order in Sandeep’s review petition against State Tax Officer. Clarifies the correct interpretation of Section 112(8)(b).
The petitioner seeks review of the interim order passed by this Court, where by this Court had granted an interim stay for a period of two months on condition that the petitioner remits 20% of the disputed demand within one month. It is pointed out that the direction to remit 20% is not what is contemplated under Section 112(8)(b) and that, what i...
