2020 (12) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....RDER HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The revision is admitted on the following questions: "(I) Whether the Tribunal and the Authority below have failed to consider the strong prima facie case in favour of the Revisionist in view of the astronomical demand based on presumption without any material on record and arbitrary in nature? (III) Whether the Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heard finally. The present revision relates to the Assessment Year 2014-15. It is alleged that the Assessing Authority, vide order dated 20.3.2020, under section 28(2) of the VAT Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') enhanced the turn over giving rise to a disputed tax liability of Rs. 50,90,63,883/-. The said order of assessment was challenged before the appellate authority which w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emand upto the extent of 90% of the tax and thus the revisionist had to deposit a sum of Rs. 10% of the tax due as a stay of entire demand. The said order dated 28.10.2020 has been challenged by the present revision. A perusal of the order dated 28.10.2020 reveals that while deciding the stay application the Tribunal recorded that at that stage prima facie case was made out and direction for dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law laid down in catena of judgements in the case of ITC vs. Commissioner Appeals (MANU/UP/0515/2003:2005 (184) E.L.T. 347), followed in Honda Siel Cars vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Lucknow [2010 UFTC 1152] and KribhcoShyam Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CST (2009 UPTC 626) as well as the decision in Pennar Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (MA....