M/S. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA LUCKNOW THROU Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. GOMTI NAGAR LUCKNOW AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by M/s Food Corporation of India, which is a corporation of the Central Government and is entrusted with the duty of procuring food grains at notified prices and supplying the same for distribution through various agencies including public distribution system. For the assessment year 2007-08, the assessing authority, vide assessment order dated 10.10.2017, imposed a heavy tax liability on the applicant. Aggrieved by which, it had preferred first appeal No. 1049 of 2017. The appellate authority, vide order dated 30.11.2017, granted stay to the extent of 75% of the disputed tax liability. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant took the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. Vide impugned order dated 12.01.2018, the Tribunal granted stay to the extent of 90%. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision has been filed.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that although the Tribunal in its impugned order has recording a finding in favour of the petitioner regarding financial hardship but still it did not grant absolute stay. It is further submitted that the view of the Tribunal that the merits of the case shall be examined at the stage of hearing of the appeal, is manifestly incorrect, inasmuch as in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals) Custom and Central Excise, Meerut-1, 2005 (184) E.T.C. 347 (Alld.), it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have taken into consideration the pleadings regarding existence of strong prima facie case, which is the main consideration, while deciding stay application. It is further contended that the applicant being a Government corporation, the Tribunal should have granted absolute stay.

(3.) Sri Ram Kumar Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue does not dispute the legal position as contended by the revisionist. He also does not dispute that the applicant is a Central Government corporation and the impugned order does not at all take into consideration the contention of the applicant regarding existence of strong prima facie case in its favour.