9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the tax liability of Rs. 2,05,74,974 on the basis of the record available to it. To challenge this order of the assessing authority, a first appeal was filed on behalf of the revisionist saying that the assessment order has been passed in ex parte proceedings without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee/revisionist, although section 25 of the Act (U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 2007) provides that the order can be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Other grounds of challenge were that the authorities have grossly erred in the eye of law and have levied the tax on the basis of presumption while no material facts have been pointed out in the order by the assessing authority and other several grounds. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e opposite party Department argued that when the first appeal is still pending and the matter is to be seen by the first appellate court on the merits, a revision against the order of the second appellate court is not maintainable. Further, it was argued that there is no jurisdictional error in the order of the Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is in favour of the revisionist. No doubt under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 5 of 2008, the appellate authority may on the application of the appellant after giving opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, stay the operation of the order of the assessing authority of imposing the tax and of realizing the same till the disposal of the appeal but under certain conditions given in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery of 70 per cent of the tax assessed by the assessing officer. The same was repeated by the Tribunal while passing the order in second appeal. It simply referred to the prayer of the assessee regarding his financial condition and not taken into consideration the interest of the State of collection of revenue and not given any finding that any prima facie case is made out or not but enhanced the stay of recovery of tax up to 90 per cent. Further without satisfying that till today the assessee has fulfilled the pre-conditions of section 55(3) and (6) or not the appellate court has passed the order. Now the assessee has approached this revisional court to extend the stay order up to 100 per cent without showing that compliance of section 55( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
