JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J.
1. In the assessment year 1971-72, the Sales Tax Officer determined the amount of sales tax payable by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal. He also made an application under Section 10(4) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act to the revising authority praying that the realisation of the amount of tax payable by him be stayed. He further requested the revising authority to waive the payment of l/3rd amount of the disputed tax. The revising authority by its order dated 6th May, 1977, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for waiving the payment of l/3rd amount of the disputed tax. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court. The main submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the revising authority while rejecting the request for waiving of l/3rd amount did not give any reason therefor.
2. According to the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act, the revising authority has been given power to waive or relax the requirement of depositing of l/3rd amount of the disputed tax as a condition precedent for obtaining stay orders for some special and adequate reasons. The petitioner, therefore, has to make out a case before the revising authority that there was some adequate or special reasons justifying the waiver of the requirement of Sub-section (4). A copy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the revising authority has been filed as annexure 5 to this petition. We find that in that affidavit the petitioner had, without specifying any detail, made a bald statement to the effect that due to heavy losses its engineering unit was virtually lying closed and no business was being done. It is significant that in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit the petitioner had neither disclosed the net turnover nor the amount of outstanding tax required to be paid by him. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the revising authority committed any error of jurisdiction in not exercising his discretion in the petitioner's favour.
3. In this view of the matter, we are not satisfied that any case has been made out for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.