TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 716
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the first appellate authority and the learned Tribunal have failed to apply their mind to the relevant parameters while considering the application for interim relief and have declined a complete stay on the disputed tax-liability mechanically. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the following judicial pronouncements in support of his contention:- (1) Indian Oil Corportion Ltd. vs. Trade Tax Tribunal; 1999 UPTC 1030 para 4 (2) Tata Coffee Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax; 2002 UPTC 156 para 3 (3) I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Custom & Central Excise; 2005 (184) E.L.T. 347 Allahabad para 35 and 36 (4) M/s Penar Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & others; 2009 NTN (Vol.39)-126 para 7 & 8 (5) Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltrd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taes, Lucknow; 2009 NTN (Vol.40)-67 Para 12,14 & 15 (6) M/s Hond Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes; 2010 UPTC 1152 Para 9,10,11,13 & 14 (7) M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCT; T.T.R. No. 143 of 2014 decided on 10.12.2014 (8) M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. CCT; T.T.R. No. 33 of 2014 decided on 09.04.2014. Sri S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provision for filing an appeal before the learned Tribunal under Section 57(4) of the VAT Tax Act, 2008. Under sub section 9 thereof the Tribunal is empowered to stay the operation of the order appealed against or the recovery of the disputed amount of any tax, fee or penalty payable, or refund of the amount due, or proceeding for re-assessment under the order appealed against till the disposal of the appeal on the application of the appellant moved along with memorandum of such appeal after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard subject to the conditions mentioned in the provisos to the said Section. There is also a requirement under proviso (a) of sub section 9 of Section 57 of pre-deposit of not less than one third of such disputed amount in addition to the amount required to be deposited under sub-section 3 of Section 55. Sub-section 10 thereof further stipulates that no such stay order which relates to stay of recovery of any tax, fee or penalty by the learned Tribunal shall remain in force for more than thirty days unless the appellant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority concerned for the payment of the outstanding am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7;ई1 विभाग की तरफ से स्थगन का विरोध किया गया1 विद्वान अधिवक्ता के तर्कों पर विचार किया गया1 अतः समस्त तथ्यों पर विचारोपरांत विवादित कर रु0 ४,९८,०२,३५२.८८ का ६०% (साठ प्रतिशत) अपील के निस्तारण तक स्थगित रखने के आद....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....352;, लखनऊ द्वारा प्रथम अपील स. १७४/१६, १७२/१६ व १७३/१६ में पारित आदेश दिनांक २८.०४.२०१६ के विरुद्ध प्रस्तुत क़ी गई है, जिसके द्वारा प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी ने विवादित धनराशि क्रमशः रु0 ४,९८,०२,३५२. ८८, रु. १,३६,७९,८७३/- व रु. ७५,&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2339; का कार्य ठेकेदारों से वर्क कॉन्ट्रैक्ट पर कराया जाता है. ठेकेदारों को भुगतान की गई धनराशिओं पर टी. डी.एस. की कटौती करके जमा किया जाता है1 यह भी बताया गया कि फर्म द्वारा फार्म -२६ एवं अन्य व्यापारिक विवरण पूर्व ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;1 पारित कर निर्धारण आदेशों, स्थगन आदेशों, द्वितीय अपील आधारों, शपथ पत्रों और अपीलों की सुनवाई के समय विद्वान अधिवक्ता और राज्य प्रतिनिधि द्वारा प्रस्तुत तर्कों का परिशीलन किया गया. विवादित धनराशिओं के स....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....342;ित सिद्धांत तथा अपीलकर्ता की वित्तीय स्थिति और निहित विवादित धनराशिओं एवं अन्य समग्र तथ्यों को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रथम अपीलों के निर्णय तक अपीलकर्ता द्वारा कर निर्धारण अधिकारी के समक्ष समुचित प्रतिभ&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2350; अपीलों के निस्तारण तक इस प्रतिबन्ध के साथ स्थगित की जाती है की अपीलकर्ता स्थगित धनराशिओं की प्रतिभूति सम्बंधित कर निर्धारण अधिकारी के सन्तोषनुसर उनके समक्ष इस आदेश के ३० दिन के अंदर प्रस्तुत करेंगे. उप....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... position in this regard is being reiterated in the solemn hope that in future they shall adhere to the same strictly. The principles which are to be kept in mind while considering the application for interim relief/temporary injunction have been settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions. Reference may be made in this regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161. This was a judgment rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges, wherein, in paragraph 30 their Lordships observed as under:- ".....[A] party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course. Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injunction is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The court grants such relief according to the legal principles--ex debito justitiae. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. While considering the concept of "balance of convenience" which is required to be in favour of granting injunction, the court opined that while granting or refusing to grant injunction, the court should exercise sound judicial discretion and find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing compelling possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject-matter should be maintained in status-quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus, it opined that a court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad-interim injunction pending the suit. The aforesaid observations were made in the context of refusal or grant of temporary injunction in a suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but the principles enunciated therein have been applied to matters relating to grant or refuse to gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mes that public authorities function properly and bonafide with due regard to the public interest, a court must be circumspect in granting interim orders of far reaching dimensions or orders causing administrative, burdensome inconvenience or orders preventing collection of public revenue for no better reason than that the parties have come to the court alleging prejudice, inconvenience or harm and that a prima facie case has been shown. There can be and there are no hard and fast rules. But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is the question of irreparable injury. There is the question of the public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration. It wondered why in the case indirect taxation where the burden has already been passed on to the consumer, any interim relief should at all be given to the manufacturer, dealer and the like! It also referred to its own observation in Siliguri case(supra) that "the Court has therefore to strike a delicate balance after considering the pros and cons of the matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ility even in such cases would fall within the ambit of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Benara Valves Ltd (supra) as aforesaid. It is not out of place to refer a Division Bench of this Court in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Custom & Central Excise reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 347 wherein a similar view has been taken. In Benara Valves Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court observed that "petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine manner 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." It also observed in paragraph 9 of the judgment that "it has become an unfortunate trend to casually dispose of stay applications by referring to decisions in Siliguri Municipality and Dunlop India cases without analysing factual scenario involved in a particular case. In nut shell the Sumnum Bonum of the decision is due and proper application of mind to the factual scenario involved in the case keeping in mind the principle of prima facie case, bala....