9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um. Even in the p resent appeal also, the appellant has not challenged the order dated 06.08.2015 but the challenge is to subsequent order, whereby, the application for modification was rejected - we do not find that the Tribunal having committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application. The litigation appears to be a frivolous litigation to delay the recovery of the revenue. If the appellant was dissatisfied with the first conditional order for deposit of 50%, nothing prevented the appellant to approach the higher forum. The appellant has merrily enjoyed the time. The application filed for modification has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal - application for modification rejected - appeal dismissed. - CSTA No. 09/2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal to treat as change in the circumstances, which could not be brought to its notice. Hence, the application for modification ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. He submitted that consideration of the facts and circumstances as in the case of similarly situated persons, the matter is referred to the larger Bench, but unconditional stay was required to be gr anted, which has not been granted. Therefore, the present appeal. 4. We may record that when the order dated 06.08.2015 was passed by the Tribunal on the stay application, wherein, the stay came to be granted o n a condition to deposit 50% of the amount with proportionate interest, the said order is accepted by the appellant in as much as the said order was not challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so far as the factual aspect is concerned. Subsequent change in law, in our opinion cannot be said to be a valid ground for modification of the earlier interim order, which is accepted by the parties and remained challenged before any forum. Even in the p resent appeal also, the appellant has not challenged the order dated 06.08.2015 but the challenge is to subsequent order, whereby, the application for modification was rejected. 9. In view of the above, as such, on the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the Tribunal having committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application. 10. Apart from the above, the appeal has to be limited to the question of law. The Tribunal has exercised the judicial discretion and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
