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, in an interim stay application arising from a statutory appeal under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, the appellate authority was required to consider the prima facie merits of the case and the assessee's financial hardship while fixing the percentage of disputed tax to be deposited.
Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction was invoked against a Tribunal order that had reduced the stay protection from 70% to 80% of the disputed tax remaining stayed during the appeal, leaving 20% to be deposited. The Court noted that while considering stay or waiver-cum-stay during pendency of a statutory appeal, the appellate authority must examine both the prima facie merits and the financial condition of the applicant, and that insistence on deposit without due regard to hardship may render the right of appeal illusory. On the facts placed before it, the Court found that the Tribunal had not adequately accounted for the relevant hardship factors and that a further modification of the stay arrangement was warranted.
Conclusion: The stay order was modified in favour of the assessee by directing that 90% of the disputed tax remain stayed during the pendency of the first appeal, with 10% to be deposited within one month and security for the balance amount to be furnished to the satisfaction of the assessing authority.