9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njab, For the Respondent : Avneesh Jhingan ORDER :- The order of the court was made by AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J.-This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 2011 filed by the State against the respondent involving identical issues based on similar facts relating to assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 33 of 2011. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated November 11, 2010 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") relating to assessment year 2009-10 claiming the following substantial questions of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ₹ 1,03,01,684 were detected which remained unexplained. Accordingly, notice under section 30 of the Act was issued for framing the provisional assessment for the assessment year in question. None had appeared on behalf of the assessee in the proceedings. The provisional assessment was finalized by the designated officer vide order dated May 31, 2010 raising a demand of ₹ 14,61,149 including penalties under sections 56 and 60 of the Act. Against the assessment order dated May 31, 2010, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals). The application was also filed for hearing the appeal without depositing 25 per cent of the amount of additional demand of tax and penalty as required und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent controverting the submissions made by the learned State counsel submitted that 25 per cent as envisaged under section 62(5) of the Act was relating to amount of tax, interest and penalty which was imposed and the assessee having paid more than the same, the Tribunal was right in adjudicating the issue in favour of the assessee. Support was drawn from Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [2013] 59 VST 183 (P&H); [2010] 37 PHT 53 (P&H) and State of Punjab v. Novelty Associates Pvt. Limited [2013] 59 VST 185 (P&H); [2011] 39 PHT 316 (P&H). It was further urged that the Ordinance on which the reliance has been placed was promulgated on August 17, 2011 and is prospective and, thus, would not govern the present case. After giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91 Adverting to the judgment in Raj Kamal Marbles case [2010] 37 PHT 106 (P&H) on which reliance had been placed by the appellant, a perusal of the substantial questions of law claimed therein clearly spells out that the primary issue therein was whether the assessee had complied with the conditions envisaged under section 62(5) of the Act. The court on facts had concluded that the assessee was unable to substantiate the plea that 25 per cent of the total amount of tax, penalty and interest, if any, had been paid as was claimed by it. Such being not the situation here, the said judgment does not advance the case of the appellant. Furthermore, in so far as the Punjab Ordinance No.10 of 2011 dated August 17, 2011 is concerned, the appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
