2013 (3) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore the appellate authority alongwith an application for stay. By order dated 1.11.2012 ( Annexure no.2) the Appellate Authority granted stay only to the extent the extent of 55% of tax liability which is to be deposited by the revisionist . The order dated 1.11.2012 passed by appellate authority has been challenged byrevisionist before the Tribunal by way of Second Appeal( Second Appeal No. 368 of 2012 year 2008-2009, Pooja Trading Company Vs. Commissioner, Commercial Tax , U.P. ) , dismissed by order dated 21.12.2012 passed by opposite party no.1/ Commercial Tax Tribunal( Bench 2) Commercial Tax , Faizabad Bench, Faizabad, hence the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that financial condition of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceeds in appeal, he will be entitled to get the refund, are not the considerations for deciding the application. The order of the Appellate Authority itself must show that it had applied its mind to the issue raised by the appellant and it has been considered in accordance with law. The expression ' undue hardship' has a wider connotation as it takes within its ambit the case where the assessee is asked to deposit the amount even if he is likely to exonerate from the total liability on disposal of his appeal. Dispensation of deposit should also be allowed where two views are possible." There is no justification or reasons on the part of the appellate authority not to stay the tax liability which is to be recovered from the revisionist till....