TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....crores, within eight weeks from that date. To put the facts in proper perspective, we at the outset asked the appellants for justification of the following points :- (a) What modification is sought and for what ? (b) Admissibility of such modification application? 2. We were very clear in raising the above points because the statute or any enacting provisions therein, is so construed as to make effective and operative, on the principle expressed in the maxim, ut res magis valeat quam pereat. In this connection we gain strength from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Teja Singh - AIR 1959 SC 666. 3. Shri Naresh Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants made elaborate submissions. He submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that they are willing to offer their residential Bungalow with plot area admeasuring 900 sq. yards (Municipal census No. 1054 + 1-2, Municipal Tenement No. 2713-001-00.T, Municipal Census No. 45/1-2/1, Municipal Tenement No. 2713-0001-00-0101-P, Survey No. 70/C (3), Paiki, FP No. 180, Paiki TPS No. 14 of Dariyapur-Kazipur) valued by a Govt. registered valuer and valued at ₹ 6.28 crores as surety/security for disposal of the appeal on merits. 5. Concluding his arguments, the learned Advocate submitted that they have strong case in their favour. Financial hardship faced by them be considered and they are willing to be heard finally on the date fixed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 6. Shri K.M. Mondal, learned Consultant appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a license to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens' faith in the impartiality of public administration, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of its filing." 11. Two significant expressions used in the provisions are "undue hardship to such person" and "safeguard the interests of revenue". Therefore, while dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e. consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interest of Revenue have to be kept in view. 12. As noted above there are two important expressions in Section 35(F). One is undue hardship. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the applicant for waiver and has to be established by him. A mere assertion about undue hardship would not be sufficient. It was noted by this Court in S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (AIR 1994 SC 923) that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... legality of the issue, we are of the opinion that a modification of previous stay order is justified. Having gone through the balance sheet, bank certificate and various submissions, we are convinced that the applicant is undergoing a severe financial transgression. The genuineness is also clear from the offer of the applicant to pledge his residence in lieu of the pre-deposit in cash. 11. The plea for early hearing is agreeable on the ground that revenue involved is more than Rs. one crore. 12. After considering the various submissions, case laws and facts placed before us, due to peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we order as follows (without expressing any opinion on merits of the case) :- (a) the stay orde....