TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visionist in nut shell is that both 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) Pennal Industries Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others; (2009) 3 SCC 177 (2) Ravi Gupta vs. commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another; (2009) 5 SCC 208 (3) Mool Chand Yadav and another vs Raz Buyland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur and others; (1982) 3 SCC 484 (4) Benara Valves Ltd. And others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and another; (2006) 13 SCC 347 (5) Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation and others; (2009) 11 SCC 229 (6) Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others vs Pune Municipal Corporation and another; (1995) 3 SCC 33 (7) Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2009) UPTC 626 (8) M/s Honda Siel, Cards India Ltd. vs. the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Luckn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the power of staying the realization of disputed amount of tax, fee or penalty payable by the appellant till the disposal of the appeal, provided that-(i) where an order under appeal involves dispute about tax, fee or penalty, no stay order shall remain in force after thirty days from the date on which the same has been granted, if the appellant does not furnish security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority for payment of the amount, the realization whereof has been stayed within the aforesaid period of thirty days; (ii) no such application shall be entertained unless it is filed along with the memorandum of appeal under sub-section (1). Against the order of the First Appellate Authority there is a 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1;रस्तुत किया गया है जिसमे विवादित धनराशि रु० ३२,९६,६२,९५०.०० है1 स्थगन प्रार्थना पत्र पर सुनवाई हेतु अपीलकर्ता की ओर से श्री जी0 एल० जोशी, अधिवक्ता/ राकेश गुप्ता अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित हुए बताया कि १७४९ चे....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ी कमिश्नर, खण्ड - १४ वाडिज्य कर, लखनऊ उपस्थित हुए और स्थगन का प्रबल विरोध किया.1 अतः समस्त तथ्यों पर विचारोपरांत विवादित देयकर रु0 ३२,९६,६२,९५०.०० (बतीश करोड़ छिन्नवेय लाख बहसठ हज़ार नौ सौ पचास मात्र) का ७०% (सत्तर पî....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....342;्वारा प्रथम अपील स०-२७८ वर्ष १२-१३ के लिए एडिशनल कमिश्नर ग्रेड-२, (अपील) -४, वाडिज्य कर, लखनऊ द्वारा पारित प्रश्नगत वसूली स्थगन आदेश दिनांक ११.०५.२०१६ के विरुद्ध योजित क़ी गई है जिसमें उनके द्वारा विवादित धनराश....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2350;य कि भी मांग की गई1 समस्त विवादित कर को अपील निस्तारण तक स्थगित रखने के लिए अनुरोध किया गया1 राज्य का पक्ष प्रस्तुत करने के हेतु असिस्टेंट कमिश्नर एवं राज्य प्रतिनिधि उपस्थित हुए. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्ê....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....अपील स्तर पर विवादित बिंदु का निस्तारण प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा किया जाना है, अतः वाद के गुण दोष के सम्बन्ध में अधिकरण स्तर से कोई टिपणी किया जाना वांछित/उचित नहीं है1 अपीलकर्ता विवादित कर को अदा कर सकने ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....307; प्रश्नगत द्वितीय अपील आंशिक रूप में स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है1 आदेश अपीलकर्ता व्यापारी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रश्नगत द्वितीय अपील स. १६०/१६, वर्ष १२-१३ आंशिक रूप में स्वीकार की जाती है तथा विवादित राशि के ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stay the realization of the disputed tax-liability to the extent of 90%, and merely on the basis of this cryptic recital it has passed the order accepting the appeal partly, thereby impliedly setting aside the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Such cryptic recitals both by the First Appellate Authority and the learned Tribunal do not satisfy the requirement of law. The passing of such orders in such a manner are hereby deprecated. For the convenience of the learned Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority the legal 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. The Court also opined that "prima facie case" is a substantial question raised bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits i.e. a triable issue. Satisfaction that there is a 'prima facie' case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The concept of "irreparable injury" was considered in Dalpat Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court opined that it does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury but means only that the injury must be a 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases which demand that interim orders should be made in the interests of justice. Where gross violations of the law and injustices are perpetrated or are about to be perpetrated, it is the bounden duty of the court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen's faith in the impartiality of public administration, a court may well be justified in granting interim relief against public authority. But since the law presumes 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. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no legs to stand on, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Thus, the Supreme Court clarified the matter regarding prima-facie case, thus in a given case if the issue involved has already been adjudicated then it would be a very strong prima facie case in favour of the assessee and subjecting the assessee to tax-liability 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 i....