9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal No. 204 of 2015, claiming the following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal, Annexure A-3 is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have waited for the out come of the pending petition in the High Court? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexures A-2 and A-3 are sustainable in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in cases of vires of Section 62(5) of PVAT Act? 2. A few facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is a registered dealer having TIN No. 03372018953 and is carrying on the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l demand, upon which the appellant filed CWP No. 15261 of 2015 challenging the vires of Section 62(5) of the Act. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.12.2015. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 1.10.2015 (Annexure A-3) upheld the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. 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 2013 (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 23.12.2015 wherein after c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondition 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 Tribunal on the same ground without touching the merits of the controversy. Where the appeals are pending without an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
