9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside. - Matter remanded back - VATAP No. 10 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-2-2016 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. RAJ RAHUL GARG, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the dealer under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 5.11.2015 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Punjab Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in Appeal No. 334 of 2014, claiming the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the authorities below were justified in dismissing the appeals of the appellant by holding the condition of pre deposit of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 23.12.2015 wherein the vires of Section 62(5) of the Act were challenged, has remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to take further action in accordance with the observations made therein. Thereafter, the appellant filed CWP No. 276 of 2016 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 8.1.2016 (Annexure A-6). Hence, the present appeal. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in this appeal stands concluded by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 26920 of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority is satisfied that the entire purpose of the appeal will be frustrated or rendered nugatory by allowing the condition of predeposit to continue as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal before it. Therefore, the power to grant interim protection/injunction by the first appellate authority in appropriate cases in case of undue hardship is legal and valid. As a result, question (c) posed is answered accordingly. 34. In some of the petitions, the petitioners had filed an appeal without filing an application for interim injunction/protection which are still pending whereas in other petitions, the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for want of pre-deposit and further appeal has also been dismissed by the Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
