9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 33 of 2011. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated November 11, 2010 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") relating to assessment year 2009-10 claiming the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the order passed by learned Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal without considering the judgment of this honourable High Court in case of Emerald International Ltd. v. State of Punjab reported as [2001] 122 STC 382 (P&H); [1997] 10 PHT 1 is sustainable in law? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was empowered to order for the hearing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalties under sections 56 and 60 of the Act. Against the assessment order dated May 31, 2010, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals). The application was also filed for hearing the appeal without depositing 25 per cent of the amount of additional demand of tax and penalty as required under section 62(5) of the Act. The said application was rejected by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed in limine vide order dated August 10, 2010. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated November 11, 2010 accepted the appeal and directed the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the appeal on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2010] 37 PHT 53 (P&H) and State of Punjab v. Novelty Associates Pvt. Limited [2013] 59 VST 185 (P&H); [2011] 39 PHT 316 (P&H). It was further urged that the Ordinance on which the reliance has been placed was promulgated on August 17, 2011 and is prospective and, thus, would not govern the present case. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. A Division Bench of this court in Novelty Associates Pvt. Limited's case [2013] 59 VST 185 (P&H); [2011] 39 PHT 316 (P&H) after following the judgment in Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd.'s case [2013] 59 VST 183 (P&H); [2010] 37 PHT 53 (P&H) while adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per cent of the total amount of tax, penalty and interest, if any, had been paid as was claimed by it. Such being not the situation here, the said judgment does not advance the case of the appellant. Furthermore, in so far as the Punjab Ordinance No.10 of 2011 dated August 17, 2011 is concerned, the appeal having been adjudicated by the Tribunal on November 11, 2010, whereas Ordinance No. 10 of 2011 was promulgated with effect from August 17, 2011, prospectively, the State cannot derive any benefit therefrom. In view of the above, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of 25 per cent to be deposited was to be calculated on the total amount of tax, interest and penalty which was imposed. Accordingly, no question of law much less ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
