TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (10) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (the respondent) and prayed for stay of realisation of the amount assessed. The Appellate Tribunal, by exhibit P5 order, granted a conditional stay. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: "We direct the petitioner to pay 1/3rd of the disputed tax and surcharge for the year 1981-82 and 50 per cent of the diputed tax for the years 1982-83 and 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, no exemption to that extent has been granted and no reason is stated in the order as to why the petitioner is not entitled to exemption in respect of the amount covered under form 18A declarations. Hence the petitioner prays for quashing exhibit P5 order and to issue an interim direction to the respondent not to collect any tax from the petitioner in respect of the assessment years 1981 to 1984....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se. On a perusal of the order, it appears that the Tribunal has not passed a blanket or a mechanical order. On the other hand, it has applied its mind and passed orders specifying the quantum of deposit to be made in respect of the disputed tax. The determination of the percentage of deposit to be made varies from year to year. As is evident for the year 1981-82, only 1/3rd of the disputed tax was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptable. As has been said above, this is not a case where the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order nor can it be said that it has passed a perverse or illegal order. In this view of the matter, I find that there is no justification to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and the impugned order does not call for any int....