9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstantial questions of law:- (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in rejecting the pleas of the appellant for not having the sufficient means to comply with the condition of pre-deposit U/s 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of M/s PSPCL Vs. State of Punjab and another? 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is a dealer having TIN No. 03952052293 and is engaged in the business of trading of various metals at Lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 4. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment had noticed that in the absence of original purchase invoices and supporting documents like bank statement, GRs, in/out register or any other proof of movement of goods, the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claim cannot be allowed to the appellant. The ITC claimed on an amount of Rs. 55,205,933/- was disallowed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment vide order, Annexure A-2, creating demand of Rs. 1,09,86,225/- including the interest and penalty. The appellant challenged the said assessment before the First Appellant Authority who relying upon the judgment of this Court in M/s PSPCL v. The State of Punjab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The appellant had not filed any affidavit to the effect that it had gone into losses and was unable to pay even 10% of the tax demand. It was further recorded that in case the appeal was accepted then the amount as deposited by the appellant would be refunded whereas non-deposit of the amount would render Section 62(5) of the Act as redundant. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "The Assessing Officer created demand of Rs. 1,09,86,225/- under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The appellant is not a cancelled dealer. It has neither pleaded that it has gone insolvent or is not in possession of any funds nor it deposited any amount in compliance of Section 62(5) of the Act. The appellant has also not filed any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
