2015 (4) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f by a common order and judgment. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure P9), 25.09.2014 (Annexure P13) and 12.03.2015 (Annexure P18). The last order rejected the petitioner's application for stay of the demand. 3. The petitioner is a Government of Punjab undertaking. It undertakes trade, purchase, storage movement including inter-state movement, distribution and sale of foodgrains and other food stuffs. The petitioner also engages itself in various other public utility services. For the purpose of this petition, it is necessary to note that the primary objects are for governing, procurement and supply of foodgrains within the State of Punjab on the behest of the State Government and in the interest of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for early hearing. Probably due to the exigency of the Board, the CIT has not been able to hear the appeal so far. The question is whether the petitioner ought to have been granted a stay or not. 5. The impugned orders do not address the relevant questions while considering the application for stay. For instance, the question as to whether the petitioner has a prima facie case or not, has not been adverted to. We are unable to say that the petitioner has no case whatsoever, at this stage. Prima facie at least, the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1999) 115 STC 148 although in relation to a sales tax matter held that there was nothing to show that the t....