1981 (12) TMI 145 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Refusal of stay by the revising authority in reassessment proceedings.
2. Lack of reasons provided by the revising authority for refusing the stay.
3. Implications of not staying proceedings during a challenge before a superior authority.
4. Setting aside the orders of the revising authority and directing a fresh consideration for stay.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Allahabad High Court pertains to three revision applications by a dealer against the revising authority's orders refusing to stay proceedings before the assessing authority following remand orders by the appellate authority. The dealer had been assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for specific years, which were challenged in appeals resulting in remand for reassessment. The revising authority declined the dealer's request for stay without providing reasons, leading to the present revisions.

The Court highlighted that the revising authority has the implied power to stay proceedings as part of its revisional jurisdiction, citing precedents like Modi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax. It emphasized that while the power of stay is discretionary, a brief order without reasons cannot be upheld, as seen in cases like Camphor & Allied Products Ltd. v. Additional Revising Authority. In this instance, the impugned orders lacked reasons for denying the stay, which could render proceedings before the superior authority fruitless if not stayed.

The Court opined that when reassessment proceedings are pending due to a remand order under challenge before a superior authority, not staying the proceedings could lead to injustice and inefficiency. Therefore, the revising authority's orders refusing stay were deemed unsustainable and set aside. The revising authority was directed to reconsider the dealer's stay request with proper reasoning in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, the Court noted that proceedings related to the remand orders had been stayed by the Court, and the dealer's main cases challenging the remand orders were pending before the Tribunal due to bench unavailability. The judgment concluded by allowing the petitions, with each party bearing its own costs, and expressing expectation for the prompt disposal of the pending appeals by the appropriate authority.