9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari And Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Advocate ORDER AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The writ petition is filed for quashing of order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal') upholding the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing appeal for failure to make pre-deposit as per Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'). Further prayer is for direction to the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit. The facts are that the assessment year involved is 2014-15. The petitioner was registered under the Act and was engaged in the manufacture of knitted cloth. An in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against pre-deposit for hearing of appeal on merits. The Supreme Court in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) upheld the judgment of this Court with regard to the vires of Section 62(5) of the Act, however, the said judgment was set aside to the extent that the Appellate Authority had inherent power to grant interim protection against pre-deposit. It was held that the Appellate Authority cannot go against the statutory provision and cannot waive off the requirement of pre-deposit. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below: 17. In the light of these principles, the High Court rightly held Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act to be legal and valid and the condition of 25% of pre-deposit not to be onerous, harsh, unre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xercise would make the provision itself unworkable and render the statutory intendment nugatory. 26. In the premises, we accept the conclusions drawn by the High Court as regards questions (a) and (b) are concerned but set aside the view taken by the High Court as regards question (c). The appeals preferred by the assesses are therefore dismissed and those preferred by the State against the decision in respect of question (c) are allowed. No costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner is in financial crunch, its account has been declared as Non-Performing Asset by the bank and the hypothecated property was put to auction by the bank but could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
