9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Assessing officer admitted availability of ITC at 20,95,351/- yet allowed ITC at 29,964/-. The Assessing officer allowed net ITC at 1,85,875/- and created additional demand of 38,85,333/- inclusive of penalty under Section 53 of the PVAT Act at 16,10,307/- and interest under Section 32 of the PVAT Act at 4,02,576/- - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of THE MORINDA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL LTD MORINDA Versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS [2016 (9) TMI 1315 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that There is no justification for levy of penalty for the period recovery of tax remained stayed by this Court - following the said decision, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts and in the circumstances, the order levying purchase tax under section 19 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 and not allowing correctly ITC on the said purchase tax without assigning any reason is correct in law in view of the provision of the Act and various pronouncements in this behalf? (iv) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the VAT Tribunal Punjab Chandigarh has grossly erred in upholding the order of the Excise and Taxation cum Designated Officer, Jalandhar-2 as upheld by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in levying purchase tax under Section 19 of the Punjab VAT Act on the State Advised Price instead of SMP paid by the appellant as per order of assessment (Annexure A.1)? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appellant sugar mill does not have liberty to sell these goods of its own. Similarly, there is allocation of area made by the Government of Punjab from where the sugarcane can be purchased by the appellant mill. The appellant filed its quarterly returns as per provisions of Section 26 of the PVAT Act and also the annual return in VAT-20 for the year under consideration. The case of the appellant was taken up for scrutiny. The Excise and Taxation cum Designated officer, Jalandhar while completing the assessment determined the purchase price of sugarcane for the purpose of levy of purchase tax at ₹ 4,75,60,337/-. The appellant had declared the purchase price at ₹ 4,66,76,828/- being the statutory minimum price fixed by the G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 176 of 2013 (M/s AB Sugar Limited vs. State of Punjab and another). 6. Question No. (iii) is covered against the assessee by order dated 21.09.2016 of this Court in VATAP No.43 of 2016 (The Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited Morinda vs. State of Punjab and others), wherein it was held thus:- "As far as question No.(iii) is concerned, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that input tax credit on the purchase tax, though payable but not paid by the appellant actually, could have been granted. The claim made by the appellant is that though the purchase tax was payable in terms of Section 19 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), however, admittedly that was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
