9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 173 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act, 2005 - assessee is in possession of valid declaration forms (C-Forms) - Held that - In the present case, the appellant has been required to predeposit 25% amount of the additional demand of the tax as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal, which was reasonable and justified - No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No question of law arises in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
Appeal under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order of the Value Added Tax Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11 regarding non-compliance of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act, 2005 and waiver of 25% of additional demand. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order of the Assessing Authority raising a demand of &8377; 17,54,915/- for the assessment year 2010-11 due to non-production of declaration Forms 'C' and 'H'. The first Appellate Authority and the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeals for non-compliance of Section 62(5) of the Act and failure to deposit 25% of the additional demand. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not file the appeal under the 1956 Act, making them liable to pay tax under that Act as well. The Tribunal required the appellant to predeposit 25% of the additional tax demand as a condition for hearing the appeal, which was deemed reasonable and justified. The appellant argued that the Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of Section 62(5) of the Act despite possessing C-Forms and H-Forms. However, the Court found no merit in the appellant's appeal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appellant failed to deposit the required 25% amount of the additional tax demand, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court concluded that no illegality or perversity was found in the Tribunal's findings, and no question of law arose in the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. In response to a prayer for granting more time for pre-deposit, the Court granted the appellant one month to make the required pre-deposit of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. It was specified that if the appellant complies by depositing 25% of the additional tax demand within the given time frame, the appeal would be heard by the first Appellate Authority on its merits in accordance with the law.
|
