TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the petitioner is not such that it may be able to deposit any amount. It is contended that the relevant facts for consideration of the application for waiver having not been considered, the impugned order suffers from non application of mind. It is further contended that the petitioner Co-operative society is managed and controlled by the State of U.P. and being its instrumentality, the Tribunal ought not to have insisted on deposit of any amount as a condition precedent for consideration of stay application. - Impugned order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the Tribunal is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Misc. Single No. - 6821 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 30-10-2014 - Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,JJ. For the Petitioner : Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision before this Court being Trade Tax Revision no.36 of 2014, which was allowed by order dated 10.4.2014, whereby, complete stay was granted and the first appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. It seems that thereafter, the first appellate authority, by order dated 4.4.2014 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner carried the matter in Second Appeal before the Tribunal and alongwith stay application, he filed an application for waiver supported by his affidavit, in which it is contended that the petitioner has got a strong prima facie case and it is under huge burden of loan from the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lakhimpur Kheri, which is to the tune of ₹ 66 crores and odd and thus, in case it is require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of stay application. On the other hand, Sri Sanjeev Sankhdhar, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Division Bench judgment in the case of Mawana Sugar Mills (supra) will not come to the rescue of the petitioner, as the sales in question have been effected to parties without O.C. Stamps. He further submits that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the assessing authority was justified in imposing the tax liability on the petitioner. However, he does not dispute that the financial condition of the petitioner is not such that it may be able to deposit any amount in cash, as a condition precedent for consideration its stay application. He also does not dispute that during the pendency of First Appeal, there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
