Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by Respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011 as contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. Petitioner -M/s Durga Trading Company, engaged in a business of Pan Mashala and Gutka, sells his products in the name and style of Pukar Gutkha. For the Assessment Year 2008 -2009, the Respondent No. 4 imposed a penalty of Rs. 24,60,83,676.00 under Section 28/32 of U.P. Vat Tax Act. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for stay before the Respondent No. 3, which was registered as First Appeal No. 241 of 2011. The Additional Commissioner Grade -II, vide order dated 11.4.2011, stayed 60% of the disputed tax, till disposal of the first appeal.
(3.) AGAINST the order dated 11.4.2011, the Petitioner preferred second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench -I, Lucknow, which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 195 of 2011. The Tribunal, vide order dated 11.5.2011, partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the Additional Commissioner to the effect that 75% of the disputed tax shall remain stayed during the pendency of the first appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider the relevant facts and the financial stringency. Further, in a number of decision, this Court has held that undue hardship as well as the entire relevant factors are to be considered and if the financial hardship is not considered, then, the purposes of filing the appeal itself becomes nugatory and illusory.;