TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after hearing the parties. The Tribunal cannot escape or refuse to consider the prima facie case at the time of considering the stay application as it is well settled that the parameters for deciding the stay application include prima facie case and financial hardship. In the present case, the order of the Tribunal is ex facie erroneous, inasmuch as, it refuses even to consider prima facie case while deciding the stay application, thus, there are no hesitation in holding that the order of Tribunal is clearly contrary to the settled law and is liable to be set aside. The questions framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 85 of 2020, 87 of 2020, 88 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2020 - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. For the Revisionist : Nishant Mishra,Tanmay Sadh For the Opposite Party : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. Order on Review Application No. 02 of 2020 Heard Sri Tarun Gulati, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Nishant Mishra and Sri Kumar Bislakash, appearing for the applicants/revisionists and Standing Counsel for the opposite party. The present applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aggrieved against the said order, the applicants have preferred three revisions being Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 85 of 2020 for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 (VAT), Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 87 of 2020 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (Central Tax) and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 88 of 2020 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 (VAT). The said revisions were disposed off by means of common order dated 01.9.2020 against which the present application has been filed seeking review. The counsel for the applicants argues that there are palpable errors (in so far it directs deposit of amounts) that have crept in the order dated 01.9.2020 necessitating the filing of present review application. To demonstrate the errors that have crept in, he placed some reliance on the averments contained in paragraph nos. 17 to 24 of the review application. A prima facie reading of the judgement dated 01.9.2020 makes it clear that the erros have indeed crept in while directing the deposit to be made as a condition of stay as on perusal of the amounts directed to be deposited as condition for stay are even more than the amounts which were directed by the Tribunal in its order which was under challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evisionist has already deposited 10 % of the disputed tax amount. It is also contended that the appeal filed by the revisionist raises substantial questions, and even otherwise, the revisionist intends to bring on record materials to demonstrate that requisite certificates and documents are available with the company for establishing that no further amount of tax is payable, and in such circumstances, the appeal itself is liable to be heard. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the first appellate authority to decide the appeal, on merits, without insisting upon the revisionist to deposit any further amount towards tax. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue does not dispute that ₹ 47 crores has been deposited by the revisionist towards admitted tax for the assessment year, and in respect of the disputed amount also, the revisionist has deposited 10% of the amount, Learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submits that the appeal itself can be disposed of finally by the first appellate authority. Considering the facts and circumstances, noticed above, this court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction of the assessing authority, in respect of balance 20% amount of the tax demanded, since the Tribunal has already granted stay qua 70% of the disputed tax amount. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. Similarly, in respect of Trade Tax Revision No. 107 of 2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15), the following order was passed: It is stated that as against total demand of ₹ 64,37,18,466/-, the revisionist has deposited a sum of ₹ 54,27,70,112/- and in respect of balance disputed amount of about ₹ 10 crores, appeal is pending. It is stated that the first appellate authority has permitted the revisionist to deposit 50% of the amount which condition stands modified under the order of the Tribunal by staying the demand to the extent of 70%. Submission is that there is no consideration of prima-facie case and the aspect of financial condition has also not been correctly examined. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, points out that no evidence was led by the assessee with regard to its financial hardship. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that no consideration with regard to prima-facie case of the assessee, has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sitation in holding that the order of Tribunal is clearly contrary to the settled law and is liable to be set aside. Considering the fact that the appeals arise from the Assessment Year 2013-14 are pending consideration since long, the present revisions are disposed off with a direction that the revisionists shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax for the Assessment Year 2013-14 (VAT), 2014-15 CST and 2014-15 (VAT) and for the balance amounts of disputed tax liability as assessed against the revisionists, they shall furnish security other than cash bank guarantee. Any amount deposited by the revisionists in respect of the said three assessment years, as recorded above, shall be adjusted and the appeals shall be decided on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is worthwhile to record that counsel for the revisionists states that they have already deposited the disputed tax liability of 10% in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14 (VAT) and 2013-14 (Central) and as such no further deposits are required to be made. As I have already directed that the amounts already deposited shall be taken into consideration while accepting the demand of 10% as directed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|