ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Vishal Verma learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and 2. With the consent of the parties, the revision is being finally disposed of.
(2.) The questions of law involved in this revision are as under:- (i) Whether the impugned order being Annexure 7 is not arbitrary and illegal and so is passed in casual manner without considering the facts and circumstances of the present case? (ii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case the impugned order staying the realization of disputed amount of penalty/demand to the tune of 65% stands justified even though the demand prima-facie reflects the arbitrary, illegal and conjectural approach? (iii) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed without any finding as to the commission of offence or mens reas is bad in the eyes of law and thereby making the penalty order nonest? (iv) Whether in the facts and under the circumstances of the case the revisionist is entitled for 100% stay of realization of disputed penalty?
(3.) The present revision has been preferred under Section 58 of U.P. Value Added Tax Act 2008 against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2018 passed in Second Appeal No. 117 of 2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 under Section 10(A) of Central Sales Tax Act 1956 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow Bench-III, Lucknow.;