2010 (8) TMI 971

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... revisionist and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Against the assessment order dated 26.2.2010 passed for the assessment year 2005-06 imposing tax liability of ₹ 4,04,496/-, the revisionist has preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeal) and the said appeal is pending consideration. In the above appeal on the interim stay application an order of 50% stay of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osed has not been considered. In support he has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2009 NTN (Vol.39) 126 M/s Pennar Industries Ltd. vs. State of A.P. and others. In the said case the Apex Court has observed that stay application should not be disposed in a routine manner unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or par .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d tax amount. In this way the order of the Tribunal is unreasoned and appears to have been passed in a routine and a casual manner. In this view of the matter the said order cannot be sustained specially in view of the authorities referred to above. The order of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2010 is set aside and the matter is remained to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal of the revisionist afresh ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X