9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion shows that the deficiency in court fee has been made good. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay, if any, in making good the deficiency in court fee, is condoned. 3. VATAP No. 13 of 2016 has been filed by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 8.10.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 32 of 2015, for the assessment year 2012-13. claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the orders (Annexure A-1), (Annexure A-2) and (Annexure A-3) are legally sustainable in law? (ii) Whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice at Rs. 28,98,93,570/- which comprised of purchase price of Rs. 19,97,09,540/- being the Statutory Minimum Price fixed by the Government of India for the year under consideration and Rs. 9,01,84,031/- paid by the appellant on the directions of the State of Punjab. Thus, respondent No.4 had added Rs. 9,01,84,031/- which was paid on the direction of the State Government for calculating the purchase tax liability of the appellant. Further, the gross purchases as declared by the appellant amounted to Rs. 23,55,58,750/- out of which Rs. 1,81,10,238/- were inter-state purchases and Rs. 1,49,28,511/- were purchases of tax free goods. Besides this, the Assessing Authority had admitted availability of Input Tax Credit (ITC) at Rs. 1,05,59,403/- y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, when the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953 is in force which is a special Act?" Answering the said substantial questions against the assessee, it was held as under :- "10. We, therefore, cannot take a view different from the one taken by the Supreme Court in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (supra) on the ground that the Supreme Court did not consider the provisions of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953. Nor we are entitled to ignore this judgment on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) as in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e State, the State Government are not in a position to provide adequate funds for extensive Cane Development work in the areas supplying cane to sugar factories with the result that the factories are not getting cane of good quality. The Bill is being introduced in order to provide for a rational distribution of sugarcane to factories for its development on organized scientific lines making adequate funds available after imposing a tax on sugarcane purchases by factories, to protect the interests of cane growers and of the Industry and to put the new Act permanently on the Statute Books" (vide Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 9th October, 1953, p. 1630)." 12. Faced with this, Mr. Goel submitted that in any event in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
