TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petition is filed questioning the order dated February 17, 1998 passed by the sixth respondent, Joint Commissioner (C.T.), (Legal), as illegal and without jurisdiction. By the aforementioned order, the Joint Commissioner modified the orders passed earlier on February 2, 1998 and vacated the conditional order of stay of collection of penalty granted therein. By the order dated February 2, 1998, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay on February 2, 1998 subject to the condition adverted to above. 2.. On receiving a report from the Commercial Tax Officer on February 4, 1998 that a cheque was issued by the petitioner-company on January 31, 1998 for the entire amount of penalty of Rs. 15.32 lakhs and that the same was presented to the bank on the same day, the matter was reopened by the Joint Commissioner and after giving an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contention of the petitioner that the cheque was issued by reason of pressure exerted on them by the Commercial Tax Officer and that the cheque was issued without prejudice to their request for stay. 4.. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when once the stay order was issued, it was not open to the Joint Commissioner to revise that order and vacate the stay. We do not think that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner is, therefore, not beyond reproach and it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the Joint Commissioner should not have reopened the matter. At the same time, the reasoning of the Joint Commissioner that the issuance of cheque disentitles the petitioner for interim relief does not appeal to us. We have every reason to think that the cheque was issued despite the pendency of t....