2016 (6) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder dated 4.3.2016 has been passed against the revisionist by assessing authority for the A.Y.2013-14 (U.P.). Aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist filed first appeal along with an application for stay. By order dated 20.5.2016 (Annexure No.3), the appellate authority granted interim stay of 60% of the tax during the pendency of the appeal rest is to be deposited by assessee in pursuance of the assessment/penalty order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid first appellate order, the revisionist filed Second Appeal No.329 of 2016 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. By order dated 23.5.2016, learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench-I, Lucknow granted the interim stay only to the extent of 80% tax directing the appellant to deposit 20% tax duri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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. While considering the application for interim relief, the Court must examine all pros and cons involved in the case and further examine that in case recovery is not stayed, the right of appeal con....