This revision relates to the month of April, 2010 of the assessment year 2010-11 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessment order passed against the revisionist is under challenge in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellate authority vide order dated 18.5.2011 passed an interim order protecting interest of the revisionist to the extent of 60% of the disputed tax. The revisionist was not satisfied by the said interim order and as such he preferred further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.5.2011 has protected the interest of the petitioner by granting stay to the extent of 98% of the disputed tax provided the revisionist furnishes security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority in respect of the stayed amount within 30 days.
Still not satisfied by the interim order so granted, the revisionist has preferred this revision. The contention of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal ought to have granted full stay under the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the revisionist is entitled to refund of Rs.1,53,65,757/- for the previous years. It has also been submitted that the Tribunal has referred to the argument pertaining to the refund due but has not considered the same.
Be that as it may, the revisionist has been granted substantial protection and the appeal of the revisionist is pending before the First Appellate Authority which is yet to be considered on merits. The revisionist has no vested right to get a full stay in pending appeal.
It may also be noted that I have already dismissed Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.252 of 2011 based upon similar facts vide order dated 8.4.2011, holding that failure to grant complete stay by the Tribunal does not involve any question of law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, coupled with the fact that there is no jurisdictional error and the revision does not involve any question of law, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
However, it goes without saying that before realising the balance 2% of the disputed tax, the assessing authority would consider, if any amount is refundable to the petitioner in the previous year and, if so, to adjust the same and thereafter to proceed with the recovery of the balance amount. However, this will not affect the furnishing of the security for the amount in respect whereof interim protection had already been granted by the Tribunal.
It will be open to the First Appellate Authority to consider and decide the pending appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Revision is dismissed with the above observations.
Order Date :- 25.5.2011 AKJ