V.K.Mehrotra, J - (1.) These three applications in revision are by the same dealerand are against the orders passed by the erstwhile revising authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (prior to the constitution of the Sales Tax Tribunal) refusing to stay proceedings before the assessing authority in pursuance of orders of remand made by the appellate authority. Since the revisions raise the same question, they were heard and are being decided together.
(2.) The orders assessing the applicant to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1972-73 and under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were passed by the assessing authority. They were assailed in appeals by the dealer. The appellate authority, while accepting the submission made on behalf of the dealer substantially, remanded the cases for reassessment proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer assailed these orders of remand by filing revisions under Section 10 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. The dealer also made applications before the revising authority for staying proceedings before the assessing authority in pursuance of the orders of remand. The revising authority, however, refused the prayer for stay by observing that no compelling reasons existed for staying the proceedings before the assessing authority. Hence, as noticed earlier, the present revisions by the dealer.
(3.) This Court has taken the view that the revising authority enjoyed powers of staying proceedings by necessary implication as part of its revisional jurisdiction (see Modi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1978 UPTC 759). It has also taken the view that though the power of stay under the Sales Tax Act is discretionary, a laconic order unsupported by reasons refusing the stay could not be upheld (see Camphor & Allied Products Ltd. v. Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax 1978 UPTC 583).;