- (1.) Trade Tax Revision No. 66 of 2016 has been filed under Section 58 of the VAT Act, 2008 against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 143 of 2016.
(2.) The question of law involved in this revision is as under:- Whether the impugned judgment of the tribunal can be sustained in the light of the parameteters laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions viz. Pennar Industries Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2009 3 SCC 177; Benara Valves Ltd. And others vs. commissioner of Central Excise and Another, 2006 13 SCC 347; Assistant Collelctor v. Dunlop India Ltd. & ors., 1985 1 SCC 260 etc. for considering interim relief matters ?
(3.) The contention of the revisionist in nut shell is that both the first appellate authority and the learned Tribunal have failed to apply their mind to the relevant parameters while considering the application for interim relief and have declined a complete stay on the disputed tax-liability mechanically. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the following judicial pronouncements in support of his contention:- (1) Indian Oil Corportion Ltd. vs. Trade Tax Tribunal,1999 UPTC 1030 para 4 (2) Tata Coffee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax,2002 UPTC 156 para 3 (3) I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Custom & Central Excise, 2005 184 ELT 347 Allahabad para 35 and 36 (4) Penar Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & others,2009 39 NTN 126 para 7 & 8 (5) Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltrd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taes, Lucknow,2009 40 NTN 67 Para 12,14 & 15 (6) Hond Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, 2010 UPTC 1152 Para 9,10,11,13 & 14 (7) M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCT; T.T.R. No. 143 of 2014 decided on 10.12.2014 (8) M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCT; T.T.R. No. 33 of 2014 decided on 09.04.2014.;