9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M. No. 4452-CII of 2012 Application is allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. VATAP No. 60 of 2011 1. The State of Punjab has filed this appeal under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated May 20, 2011 (annexure A5) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), claiming the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal by relying upon judgment of this honourable court in the case of M/s. Shreyans Industries Ltd. which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Range, Patiala who vide order dated September 23, 2010 disposed of the appeal remanding the matter to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Barnala, to decide the case afresh after giving proper opportunity and reconsidering all the evidence in the presence of the assessee. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated May 20, 2011 allowed the appeal holding that the assessment was not framed within three years from the date of filing of the annual return and, therefore, was barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 3. The learned State counsel submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent case related to the assessment year 2005-06 and, therefore, the assessment framed on March 26, 2010 was bad in law. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in view of incorporation of sub-section (4A) to section 29 of the Act, the appropriate authority under the Act had the power to extend period of limitation for framing assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 beyond November 20, 2009. 8. The answer to the abovesaid question is in the negative. The similar argument raised before the Tribunal was repelled by the Tribunal with the following observations: "A combined reading of sub-section (4) and newly added subsection (4A) of section 29, ibid., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
