9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence by this Court. No question of law arises in this appeal - appeal dismissed. - VATAP-248-2018 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 2-5-2019 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate ORDER AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Delay of 3 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Corporation under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 27.2.2017 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in Appeal No.279 of 2016, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09. The Assessing Authority vide order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure A-1) framed the assessment raising a demand of ₹ 3,82,63,175/- on account of reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) accrued on purchase tax under Section 19(4) of the Act read with Rule 21(6) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, on the bye products shelled out of the paddy during milling by the rice miller retained by it including interest under Section 32(3) of the Act and penalty under Section 53 of the Act of ₹ 50,79,656/- and ₹ 2,03,18,628/-, respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-1, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'the first Appellate Authority'] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sit under Section 62(5) of the Act. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the appellant noticed that since the deposit of 25% of the tax was a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal in the light of Section 62(5) of the Act, therefore, non-deposit of the same was certainly to end in dismissal of the appeal. Since the appellant failed to deposit 25% amount of the additional demand of the tax as directed by the DETC(A) and the Tribunal, the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal on that account. 7. In the present case, the appellant was required to pre-deposit 25% amount of the additional demand of the tax as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal, which was reasonable and justified. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
