9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 493 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRejection of Stay application - application for waiving the mandatory 1/3rd deposit - applicant states that the substantial question of law involved in the Revision is that an Appellate Court could not have rejected a Stay Application as cursorily as it had done in the present case - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that simply depositing 1/3rd of the mandatory deposit would not mean that the applicant was economically sound. Further the fact that the prima-facie case was not looked into by the Tribunal also can be seen from the order itself. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant in the Revision has force. The applicant in the Revision has made the deposit which was required to be made. The appeal shall now be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant - Revision allowed.
Issues:
1. Rejection of Stay Application by the Tribunal in a routine manner without considering the merits of the case and the hardship faced by the Applicant. 2. Whether the Tribunal's order meets the parameters set by the Supreme Court for considering interim relief. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with a Revision filed by the Applicant against the rejection of a Stay Application by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The Applicant argued that the Tribunal had rejected the Stay Application cursorily without considering the merits of the case and the hardship faced by the Applicant, which is a substantial question of law. 2. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal's decision did not align with the parameters established by the Supreme Court in various cases, including Pennar Industries Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Benara Valves Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, and Assistant Collector vs. Dunlop India Ltd. The Applicant emphasized that the Tribunal's consideration was solely based on the deposit made by the Applicant, overlooking other grounds raised in the Appeal and Stay Application. 3. The Standing Counsel, in response, argued that the Tribunal's decision was supported by evidence from a survey conducted by the S.I.B. Unit, Mathura, which indicated the economic soundness of the Applicant based on seized materials like loose papers and pen drives. 4. After hearing both parties and reviewing the order, the Court found that merely depositing 1/3rd of the mandatory amount did not establish the economic soundness of the Applicant. The Court noted that the Tribunal had not considered the prima facie case of the Applicant, as evident from the order itself. Consequently, the Court held that the contentions raised by the Applicant in the Revision were valid. 5. As a result, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order dated 12.2.2020 and directed that the appeal be disposed of within three months from the date of presenting a certified copy of the order. The Court also ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the Applicant until the appeal's disposal. The Applicant was instructed to provide a certified copy of the order to the Tribunal within two weeks. 6. In conclusion, the Revision was allowed in favor of the Applicant, emphasizing the importance of considering the merits of a case and the financial status of the party when deciding on Stay Applications, in accordance with the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
|
