TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand the Court finds that while passing the impugned order the Tribunal has failed to consider various parameters as required. Furthermore the Court finds that it has taken note of the assertion by the revisionist herein before the Tribunal that the similar issue has been decided by that very Tribunal in its favour vide judgment dated 31.3.2008 for the assessment year 2002-03, however, merely on account of pendency of a revision against it before this Court at the behest of the State the said aspect has been ignored and a contrary view has been taken giving protection only to the extent of 85% of the due amount. This in the view of this Court is not correct approach, consistency in such matters especially when the Bench in respect of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Revisionist's own case being T.T.R. 91 of 2014 (A.Y. 2010-11) and decision dated 03.07.2015 in T.T.R. No.47 of 2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) and decision dated 03.05.2015 in T.T.R. No.47 of 2015 (A.Y. 2011-12) and decision dated 30.05.2016 T.T.R. No.70 of 2016 (A.Y. 2012-13), the Tribunal was justified in not granting complete relief to the Revisionist. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 23.5.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal the Court finds that the first appeal of the revisionist is still pending before the Appellate Authority, but on an application for interim relief an order was passed on 4.5.2018 granting interim relief to the extent of 60% of the due amount, meaning thereby recovery of the same would remain stayed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief matter and extensive observations/direction given therein, with a copy of the said order to be sent to the Members of the Commercial Tax Tribunal as also its Chairman, however, in spite of it the Court finds that the orders are being passed by the Tribunal ignoring the said judgment and the decisions of the Supreme Court referred herein. In the case at hand the Court finds that while passing the impugned order the Tribunal has failed to consider the 3 parameters referred in the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Tata Motors Ltd. Furthermore the Court finds that it has taken note of the assertion by the revisionist herein before the Tribunal that the similar issue has been decided by that very Tribunal in its favour vide judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
