Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Trade Tax Revision No. 65 of 2016 has been filed under Section 58 of the VAT Act, 2008 against the judgment and order dated 11.5.2016 passed by the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Lucknow in Appeal No. 160 of 2016.

2. The question of law involved in this revision is as under :

Whether the impugned judgment of the tribunal can be sustained in the light of the parameteters laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions viz. Pennar Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2009) 3 SCC 177; Benara Valves Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Central Excise and another, (2006) 13 SCC 347; Assistant Collelctor v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, (1985) 1 SCC 260; etc. for considering interim relief matters ?

3. The contention of the revisionist in nut shell is that both the first appellate authority and the learned Tribunal have failed to apply their mind to the relevant parameters while considering the application for interim relief and have declined a complete stay on the disputed tax-liability mechanically. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the following judicial pronouncements in support of his contention :

(1) Pennal Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others; (2009) 3 SCC 177

(2) Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another; (2009) 5 SCC 208

(3) Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raz Buyland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur and others; (1982) 3 SCC 484

(4) Benara Valves Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Central Excise and another; (2006) 13 SCC 347

(5) Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation and others; (2009) 11 SCC 229

(6) Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others v. Pune Municipal Corporation and another; (1995) 3 SCC 33

(7) Kribhco Shyam Fertilizers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (2009) UPTC 626

(8) M/s. Honda Siel, Cards India Ltd. v. The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P., Lucknow; (2010) UPTC 1152

(9) Agraj Ispat Private Ltd. Abupura v. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow.

(10) Suresh Chandra Agarwal and sons, Muzaffarnagar v. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow; (2010) UPTC 1158

(11) M/s. Simla Gomti Pan Products v. Commissioner of commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow; 2015 SCC Online Alld. 5081

(12) M/s. Otis Elevators Company (India) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P. Lucknow; 2014 SCC Online Alld. 13691

(13) M/s. Tata Coffee Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax and another; 2002 UPTC 156

(14) Writ Petition No. 2648 of 2012 (MS) M/s. A.P. Enterprises v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. and others.

4. Sri Sanjeev Shankhyadhar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tax-department relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collelctor v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, (1985) 1 SCC 260 and asserted that the said pronouncement has not been adhered to.

5. The parameters which are required to be considered while deciding an application for interim relief, have been settled by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, yet this Court finds from the revisions which are filed before it including this revision that not only the first appellate authority but the learned Tribunal pass un-reasoned orders which do not disclose due and proper application of mind to the relevant parameters, ignoring the pronouncement of the Supreme Court and also those of this Court on the subject. It is indeed a deplorable state of affairs and it is high time that the learned Tribunal and the Appellate Authorities under various taxing statutes woke up to the constitutional and statutory obligations imposed upon them to follow the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and by this Court while considering an application for stay of disputed tax liability.

6. Under VAT Tax Act, 2008 an appeal is provided against an order passed by the Assessing Authority which is referred to as the First Appellate Authority. Under sub-section 3 of Section 55 of the VAT Act, 2008 there is a requirement of