Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether delay in furnishing security for continuation of the stay order under the U.P. Trade Tax Act could be condoned and the recovery stay continued.
Analysis: The provision governing stay required the appellant to furnish adequate security within thirty days for the stay order to remain effective. The Court treated section 9(3-A) and section 10(8) of the Act as identical in substance and relied on earlier decisions holding that delay in furnishing security could be condoned and the time for compliance extended where the circumstances justified such relief. The Tribunal had rejected the application only on the ground that no extension was permissible, which was inconsistent with the settled interpretation of the provision.
Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned and the security was to be accepted without treating the petitioner as a defaulter.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the petitioner obtained relief continuing the protection against recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory condition for continuance of a stay order is furnishing of security within a prescribed period, the delay in compliance may be condoned and the period extended if the provision is interpreted as directory rather than inflexible.