Revision partially allowed, Tribunal orders set aside, matter remanded for reconsideration.

The revision was allowed in part, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and remanding the matter to the First Appellate Authority for reconsideration of interim relief applications within thirty days. The court emphasized adherence to Supreme Court guidelines on interim relief, highlighting the need for judicial discretion and consideration of factors like balance of convenience and irreparable injury. No coercive action against the revisionist was permitted during the reconsideration period, and the judgment stressed the importance of applying the established principles in future cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned judgment of the Tribunal can be sustained in light of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court for considering interim relief matters.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Parameters for Interim Relief:
The core issue revolves around whether the Tribunal's judgment aligns with the Supreme Court's established parameters for granting interim relief. The revisionist contends that both the First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal failed to apply their minds to the relevant parameters, leading to mechanical decisions on the stay of disputed tax liability.

2. Relevant Judicial Pronouncements:
The revisionist cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their contention, including:
- Pennar Industries Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others; (2009) 3 SCC 177
- Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another; (2009) 5 SCC 208
- Mool Chand Yadav vs. Raz Buyland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur and others; (1982) 3 SCC 484
- Benara Valves Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and another; (2006) 13 SCC 347
- Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation and others; (2009) 11 SCC 229
- Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and another; (1995) 3 SCC 33
- Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2009) UPTC 626
- M/s Honda Siel, Cards India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow; (2010) UPTC 1152
- Agraj Ispat Private Ltd. Abupura vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow
- Suresh Chandra Agarwal and sons, Muzaffarnagar vs The Commissioner Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow; (2010) UPTC 1158
- M/s Simla Gomti Pan Products vs Commissioner of commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow; 2015 SCC Online Alld. 5081
- M/s Otis Elevators Company (India) Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow; 2014 SCC Online Alld. 13691
- M/s Tata coffee Ltd. vs Commissioner of Trade Tax and another; 2002 UPTC 156
- Writ Petition No. 2648 of 2012 (MS) M/s A.P. Enterprises vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. and others

3. Tribunal and Appellate Authority's Orders:
The Tribunal's order enhanced the interim protection to 90% of the disputed tax liability but failed to apply the relevant factors, repeating the First Appellate Authority's mistake. The Tribunal's cryptic observations and lack of detailed reasoning were criticized.

4. Supreme Court's Guidelines:
The judgment reiterates the Supreme Court's guidelines for granting interim relief, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and public interest. The principles from cases like Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161, Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719, and Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985) 1 SCC 260 were highlighted.

5. Application of Supreme Court Principles:
The Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority were found to have disregarded these principles, leading to unreasoned and mechanical orders. The judgment stresses that interim orders should disclose proper application of mind to the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

6. Remand to First Appellate Authority:
Given the defects in both the Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority's orders, the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the interim relief applications within thirty days, with a directive to adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

7. Interim Protection:
To facilitate the reconsideration, the court provided that no coercive action shall be taken against the revisionist for thirty days or until the disposal of the interim relief applications.

8. Dissemination of Judgment:
The judgment directed the Senior Registrar to send copies to the Chairman of the Commercial Tax Tribunal and the Head of the Trade Tax Department, Government of U.P., to ensure adherence to the principles in future cases.

Conclusion:
The revision was allowed in part, setting aside the impugned judgments and orders of the Tribunal and remanding the matter to the First Appellate Authority for fresh consideration in line with the Supreme Court's guidelines on interim relief.

---