Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) The present revision has been pressed on question no.1 quoted below:- "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in granting stay of only 75% of the disputed tax, till the disposal of first appeal, instead of 100% stay, although accepted that applicant has good case on the merit of the case and financial condition of the applicant is weak?"
(2.) The revision arises against the rejection of the stay application for 25% of the disputed tax of penalty imposed under Section 34(8) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(3.) In short, the assessee claims that there had been some inadvertent delay on its part in depositing TDS against payments made to a contractor engaged by it. However, before issuance of penalty notice the assessee made good the default together with interest, on 25.6.2013 and 29.2014 while the penalty notice was first issued to the assessee in the year 2018.;