JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J
1. These three applications in revision are by the same dealerand are against the orders passed by the erstwhile revising authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (prior to the constitution of the Sales Tax Tribunal) refusing to stay proceedings before the assessing authority in pursuance of orders of remand made by the appellate authority. Since the revisions raise the same question, they were heard and are being decided together.
2. The orders assessing the applicant to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the year 1972-73 and under the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74 were passed by the assessing authority. They were assailed in appeals by the dealer. The appellate authority, while accepting the submission made on behalf of the dealer substantially, remanded the cases for reassessment proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer assailed these orders of remand by filing revisions under Section 10 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time. The dealer also made applications before the revising authority for staying proceedings before the assessing authority in pursuance of the orders of remand. The revising authority, however, refused the prayer for stay by observing that no compelling reasons existed for staying the proceedings before the assessing authority. Hence, as noticed earlier, the present revisions by the dealer.
3. This Court has taken the view that the revising authority enjoyed powers of staying proceedings by necessary implication as part of its revisional jurisdiction (see Modi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1978 UPTC 759). It has also taken the view that though the power of stay under the Sales Tax Act is discretionary, a laconic order unsupported by reasons refusing the stay could not be upheld (see Camphor & Allied Products Ltd. v. Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax 1978 UPTC 583).
4. In the present case, the impugned orders do not disclose any reasons for which the revising authority felt that the case was not a fit one for staying the proceedings before the assessing authority. In cases where reassessment proceedings are to take place in pursuance of an order of remand, which order itself is under challenge before a superior authority, it is obvious that the absence of an order staying proceedings, while the matter is engaging the attention of the superior authority, might make the proceedings before the superior authority in fructuous for by the time they come to be decided, the order of remand may have resulted in the completion of the proceedings before the subordinate authority. Such a consequence cannot be said to be desirable and would generally not be in the interest of justice. For this reason too, it seems necessary that an order dealing with the prayer for stay should contain reasons indicating the factors which impressed the authority while refusing that prayer.
5. The order passed by the revising authority in each of these cases by whichit has refused the stay of reassessment proceedings in pursuance of the order of remand is, therefore, not sustainable. It deserves to be and is set aside. Therevising authority will consider the applicant's prayer for stay of proceeding safresh in accordance with law.
6. It may be observed that the proceedings in consequence of the orders of remand have remained stayed under orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that in spite of the best endeavour of the applicant, the main cases wherein the order of remand is challenged could not be heard sofar on account of the absence of the appropriate Bench of the Tribunal which hassince replaced the revising authority. It is expected that those revisions (nowpending as appeals) themselves would be disposed of at an early date by the appropriately constituted authority.
7. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.