JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru - Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the revisionist and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned standing counsel for the State. The controversy involved in the revisions are identical and the same being decided by a common order treating the Commercial Tax Revision No. 1643 of 2008 as leading revision. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated October 22, 2008 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal by which the Trade Tax Tribunal has given to the revisionist partial relief of stay of 80 per cent of the tax demanded on entry tax but has refused 20 per cent of the pre-deposit by saying that the same can be agitated during the course of the appeal. The period for which the provisional assessment has been made is from January to June 2008. The questions of law referred to are as follows : "(1) Whether even otherwise Entry Tax Act is invalid, illegal and void being violative of articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India as held by the honourable court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2007] 10 VST 282 (All) in its judgment delivered on January 2007 on the basis of judgment of Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana [2006] 145 STC 544 (SC); [2006] 7 SCC 241 ? (2) Whether even assuming without admitting that Act No. 30 of 2007 is legal, and valid even though the validity of the said Act is pending adjudication before the honourable court, still in view of the certificate issued by Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes, that the seller GAIL has its branch/terminal station at Pipraula, Shahjahanpur from where natural gas is supplied to the applicant, the charging section 4 of the Act does not supply ? (3) Where in view of decision of this honourable court in the case of Mohd. Kalim v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1993] UPTC 1206 and in the case of Rish Cotton Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer 66 STC 364 (sic), copy of which was filed before the Tribunal along with written argument, the Tribunal was not justified in overlooking said judgments while partly allowing the appeal of the applicant ? Kalim v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1993] UPTC 1206 and in the case of Rish Cotton Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer 66 STC 364 (sic), copy of which was filed before the Tribunal along with written argument, the Tribunal was not justified in overlooking said judgments while partly allowing the appeal of the applicant ? (4) Whether the Tribunal being quasi-judicial authority ought to have considered the questions argued and raised and the decision of this honourable Supreme Court relied upon and hence in view of decision of honourable Supreme Court in catena of cases the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed/modified ?" The facts of the case are that the revisionist is a unit manufacturing chemical fertilizer, namely, urea for which the raw material is natural gas, which it purchases from the Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as GAIL). The petitioner contends that the GAIL has opened its terminal/branch at Pipraula District Shahjahanpur where the factory of the revisionist is situated and therefore the revisionist contends that the raw material is purchased within local area itself and therefore the demand for entry tax from the revisionist - company is not justified as the same has already been deposited by the GAIL after realizing it from the revisionist and remain in deposit with the State. The contention of the revisionist is that the GAIL has realized the entry tax as it is the party, which has brought natural gas within the local area and has deposited it with the Department in compliance with the provision of section 4(3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the revisionist further contends that the Commissioner of Trade Tax has issued a circular dated March 2, 2002 with regard to the purchase of natural gas from GAIL in which it is stipulated that where a dealer has purchased natural gas from the GAIL and entry tax has been realized by the GAIL, there is no necessary of furnishing form E as contemplated under rule 5. Circular dated March 2, 2002 is on record of the case as annexure 2. However, the authority has issued a show-cause notice on July 28, 2008 asking why the provisional assessment should not be made for the month of January 2008. Circular dated March 2, 2002 is on record of the case as annexure 2. However, the authority has issued a show-cause notice on July 28, 2008 asking why the provisional assessment should not be made for the month of January 2008. Aggrieved by the provisional assessment, the revisionist filed a first appeal before the Joint Commissioner along with stay application and the Joint Commissioner by his order dated October 13, 2008 partly allowed the stay application and has granted 60 per cent stay of the disputed amount of tax. Against the order dated October 13, 2008, the revisionist filed a second appeal before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bareilly and the Tribunal has passed the impugned order on October 22, 2008 by which it has extended partial stay of the pre-deposit from 60 per cent to 80 per cent and for the balance 20 per cent has passed an order that the same will be subject-matter of consideration during the course of appeal itself on the ground that the company has not been able to show that it is in any kind of the financial distress. However in view of the settled decisions of this court in a case where prima facie there is clear evidence to establish that the disputed tax which is being charged being paid or is not payable, then the financial capacity of assessee is not the sole criteria for either accepting or rejecting the prayer made by the assessee for stay or waiver of pre-deposit. In the same impugned order, while extending the stay of deposit, the authority has given also no cogent reason for extension of pre-deposit to 80 per cent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was relying on evidence to show that the deposit was not necessary to extend 100 per cent, the authority while considering the stay application ought to have passed orders based on the evidence which was produced by the assessee. In this case records show that entry tax had already been realized and paid by GAIL. The same could have been considered by the appellate authority and also the circular on which the assessee was relying, could also have considered while passing the impugned orders by the State. In this case records show that entry tax had already been realized and paid by GAIL. The same could have been considered by the appellate authority and also the circular on which the assessee was relying, could also have considered while passing the impugned orders by the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate that the appeals of the assessee itself for the months January to June 2008 may be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The appeal shall be presented within a week from today and the same may be decided in accordance with law. For a period of two months or till the decision is taken in the appeal, there will be stay of the balance 20 per cent of the pre-deposit provided the assessee deposits adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority other than cash or bank guarantee. The revisions are disposed of as above. No costs. Cases Referred : Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Another V. State Of Haryana & Others.