9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.35 of 2017 has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 (in short, "the PVAT Act") against the order dated 23.12.2016, Annexure A.3, passed by the Chairman VAT Tribunal, Punjab Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.164 of 2016, for the assessment year 2009-10, claiming 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) 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether ion 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 Divison, Jalandhar imposing interest under Section 32 of the Punjab VAT Act 2005 inspite of order dated 31.1.2006 of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court?" 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in VATAP No.35 of 2017 may be noticed. The appellant is a cooperative society duly registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. Its office is situated at Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. It is engaged in the purchase of sugarcane ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hases of Rs. 7,22,953/- were made from other than taxable person. The appellant had declared purchases amounting to Rs. 45,90,728/- on which it had claimed Input tax credit. According to the appellant, although the Assessing officer admitted availability of ITC at Rs. 20,95,351/- yet allowed ITC at Rs. 29,964/-. The Assessing officer allowed net ITC at Rs. 1,85,875/- and created additional demand of Rs. 38,85,333/- inclusive of penalty under Section 53 of the PVAT Act at Rs. 16,10,307/- and interest under Section 32 of the PVAT Act at Rs. 4,02,576/-. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the VAT Tribunal having failed, the appellant is before this court through the instant appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
