2020 (11) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osite Party : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present tax revision has been filed under section 58(3) of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 16.7.2020, passed in exercise of powers conferred upon the Tribunal by virtue of Section 57 (8) of the said Act. The appeal, before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der with regard to payment of the amount during the pendency of the appeal. The counsel for the revisionist further argues that if the assessment was bad in law inasmuch the amount has been assessed against the revisionist with regard to the goods purchased by the revisionist outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. He also argues that along with the appeal the revisionist has preferred stay applica....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e firm to impress that entire amount recovery should be stayed. The Tribunal, vide order dated 16.7.2020, although mentioned the financial hardship of the revisionist, however, without adverting to it, stayed 90% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 20,98,728/- out of the total disputed amount of Rs. 23,31,920/- and directed the deposit of 10% of the amount. Aggrieved against the said, the presen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as well as the order dated 22.9.2020 passed in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 100 of 2020 (M/s Kone Elevator India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow). In the said two judgements cited by learned counsel for the revisionist, the question of law was not framed or decided. Thus, I am not impressed by the said judgements. Reverting to the present case, a perusal of the said....