9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits should have been maintained, if not, cogent reasons should have been given which do not exist in this case. Revision allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Trade Tax Revision No. 14 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 17-5-2017 - Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. For Applicant : Vaibhav Pandey,Rahul Agarwal For Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER Heard. Both the contesting parties are represented and they consent to the disposal of this revision. The following questions arise for consideration in this revision: (a) Whether the Tribunal below ought to have considered the strong prima facie case in favour of the Revisionist in view of the inter-State nature of the transaction, Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act and the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard the revisionist herein filed a Second Appeal before the Tribunal i.e. as against the order dated 25.4.2017 disposing the interim relief matter. The Tribunal by the impugned order has increased the protection granted by the First Appellate Court, as an interim measure, from 65% to 80%. The contention of the revisionist represented through Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate is that the parameters laid down in catena of decisions by the Supreme Court as well as this Court for considering the interim relief matters have not been taken into consideration. Neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor irreparable loss has been considered. The order has been passed cryptically and mechanically. The other contention raised on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erely on account of pendency of a revision against it before this Court at the behest of the State the said aspect has been ignored and a contrary view has been taken giving protection only to the extent of 80% of the due amount. This in the view of this Court is not correct approach, consistency in such matters especially when the Bench in respect of the same assessee granted the relief in respect of an earlier assessment year on merits should have been maintained, if not, cogent reasons should have been given which do not exist in this case. For the reasons aforesaid the order impugned is hereby quashed. Second Appeal of the revisionists bearing No.64 of 2017 relating to the assessment year 2013-14 shall now stand restored before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
