Simla Gomti Pan Products vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Affidavit filed today is taken on record. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these revisions, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

Notice on behalf of the opposite-party has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

The instant revisions have been filed u/s 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the common order dated May 21, 2011 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench I, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 233 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 234 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 235 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 236 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 237 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 238 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 239 of 2011, Second Appeal No. 240 of 2011 and Second Appeal No. 241 of 2011 for the assessment year 2010-11.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the notification dated July 1, 2008 was issued for the purpose of compounding on per machine basis by the Central Excise Department. A survey was conducted on December 3, 2010 by the Trade Tax Department and provisional assessment dated March 8, 2011 was made for the period April, 2010 to December, 2010 relating to the assessment year 2010-11.

Against the provisional assessment, the revisionist has preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority vide order dated May 13, 2011 had granted stay of 60 per cent of the disputed tax.

Against the aforesaid stay order, second appeal was filed before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Lucknow. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated May 21, 2011 has granted the stay of 80 per cent of the disputed tax without considering the financial stringency as well as prima facie merit of the case.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Tribunal should have granted 100 per cent stay of the disputed tax as the matter is still under consideration before the first appellate authority and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, the petitioner has the remedy of filing second appeal.

Mr. H.P. Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the question with respect to the liability of the tax is to be decided but in order to balance the equity, the Tribunal has stayed the 80 per cent of the disputed tax amount during the pendency of the first appeal and, as such, the revisionist cannot be said to be aggrieved.

His further submission is that the Tribunal has considered the financial hardships of the revisionist.

Be that as it may, this court is of the view that since the liability of tax is still to be determined and for that matter the first appeal is pending, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be expedient that a direction be issued to decide the pending appeal expeditiously.

In this view of the matter, the above trade tax revisions are disposed of finally with the direction that the pending appeal before the first appellate authority shall be considered and decided on merit in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it and for the period of three months or till the appeal is decided, whichever is earlier. In the facts of the present case the revisionist shall deposit 7 per cent (seven per cent) of the disputed tax amount within a period of 30 days from today before the assessing authority and furnish the security for the balance amount other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the assessing authority concerned. The parties shall cooperate in the pending appeal for its disposal.