- (1.) HEARD Shri S.M.K. Choudhary, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Kunal Srivastava for the revisionist and the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS Trade Tax Revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the appellate authority in appeal no. 332 of 2014 filed under section 57 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008.
(3.) ACCORDING to the revisionist the authority has reopened the assessment case of the revisionist -Company for the assessment year 2009 -10 and thereafter proceeded to assess the tax at Rs.1,58,51,891.00. The admitted tax was Rs.80,04,391.00. The disputed amount was assessed at Rs.78,47,500.00.? The first appellant authority on the said application has granted a stay to the extent of 60%. The order of the appellant authority was assailed by the revisionist before the Tribunal on the ground that during inspection by the SIB forms 38 and 39 were found but the same do not belong to the revisionist -Company and infact referred to the Transporter M/s Safexpress. The Tribunal granted stay to the extent of 75%. This revision has been filed only against the grant of stay to the extent of 75%. The stand taken by the revisionist -Company is that the Company is not in a financial condition to pay the remaining 25% of the amount and in this regard the learned senior counsel submits that with respect to certain earlier assessment the first Appellate Authority had granted benefit of stay to the extent of 60%. Aggrieved, appeal was filed before the Commercial Tax Tribunal which granted the benefit of stay to the extent of 85%. The contention of the Company was that they were not in a financial condition or position to pay the remaining 15% also. The submission is that with regard to earlier assessment in which the benefit of stay had been granted to the extent of 85% and there was a direction to pay the remaining 15% of the disputed tax, a Trade Tax Revision no. 70 of 2012 had been filed and in that case the Court considering the facts and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pennar Industries Limited Vs. State of A.P. and others,2009 39 NTN 126 and the decision in the case of Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow,2009 40 NTN 67 had modified the order of the Commercial Tax Tribunal by order dated 23.5.2012 to the extent that the revisionist was directed to furnish the bank guarantee of the remaining 15% amount within a period of 15 days.;