Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—All these Revisions involve common questions of law and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for Revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Trade Tax Revision No. 141 of 2014:

3. This Trade Tax Revision has been preferred under Section 58 of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2008”) raising following questions of law formulated in para 40 of memo of revision:

(I) Whether in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ITC Limited v. Commissioner (Appeals), 2005 ELT 347 (para 35), the complete dispensation of deposit of the amount should be allowed if the appellant-applicant has strong prima facie case and where two views are possible even if the appellant-applicant is running in good financial position?

(II) Whether none of three clauses of Section 25 (1) of Act, 2008 is applicable in the present case hence the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make a provisional assessment order and the provisional assessment order having been passed only on account of seizure of the goods on 27.8.2013 on the technical ground of column No. 6 of Form-38 of the consignment being not filled and there being no material available on record with the assessing authority to show or establish that the applicant is suppressing the turnover of sale or purchase, hence in view of the law laid down by this Court in ITC Limited (supra) and in the case of Honda Siel Cards Ltd., 2010 UPTC 1152, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the applicant to deposit 20 % of the disputed amount of tax by completely overlooking the law laid down by this Court.

(III) Whether as per Section 25 (1) of Act, 2008, the provisional assessment order can be passed only on the basis of material available on record with the assessing authority, when it appears to the assessing authority that the turnover of sale or purchase disclosed by the dealer is not worthy of credence?

(IV) Whether in the present case, there is no material available on record with the assessing authority with respect to the undisclosed sales or purchases having been made by the applicant and hence no provisional assessment order could be passed only on the basis of seizure having been made against the applicant. Thus, the provisions of Section 25 (1) of Act, 2008 are not applicable in the present case of the applicant?

(V) Whether the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the specific grounds having been raised by the applicant that the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act, 2008 for the purpose of making the provisional assessment are not applicable in the present case of the applicant?

4. The revision has not arisen from final orders of appellate authorities below, but has arisen at an interlocutory stage.

5. The facts in brief are that a provisional assessment under Section 25 (1) of Act, 2008 for the month July’ 2013 (Financial Year 2013-14) was proposed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax (II), Ghaziabad, vide notice dated 20.11.2012. After receiving reply from Revisionist-Assessee, he passed a provisional assessment order on 9.12.2013 determining tax liability of Rs. 4,37,32,036/- and after adjusting the amount already paid, raised a demand of Rs. 8,40,000/-. Thereagainst Revisionist-Assessee preferred Appeal No. 10 of 2014 and also sought for stay of requirement of deposit of entire demand/disputed amount demanded vide assessment order dated 9.12.2013. Appellate Authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal)-2, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.1.2014 granted stay to the extent of only 50 per cent of the disputed amount of Rs. 8,40,000/-. Thereagainst Assessee-Revisionist preferred Second Appeal No. 72 of 2014 which has been decided by Tribunal vide order dated 20.1.20