9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts are being taken from VATAP No. 233 of 2014. 3. VATAP No. 233 of 2014 has been filed by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") against the orders dated 27.2.2012 (Annexure A-3) and dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether the impugned orders passed by the ld. below authorities without taking into account the material submissions and against the statutory provisions of law is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? b) Whether the act on the part of the ld. below authorities to pass the impugned orders in lack of jurisdiction is legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... additional demand of Rs. 26,20,799/-, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, but remained unsuccessful and thus, preferred second appeal before the Tribunal, who too dismissed its appeal vide order dated 27.2.2012 (Annexure A- 3). Thereafter, the application of the appellant for rectification of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.2012 (Annexure A-3) dismissing its appeal, was also rejected vide order dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure A-4) by the Tribunal. Still dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant to raise all such possible legal pleas, because the impugned order dated 27.2.2012 (Annexure A-3) dismissing the appeal of the appellant, was passed exparte, depriving the appellant of its legitimate right to put forward its case. 9. Further, the appellant was even not permitted to explain the time gap in between i.e. difference of dates shown in the dispatched dates. Perusal of the order, Annexure A-3, shows that it has made simply re-petition of the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as of the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated officer, dismissing the same without giving its own findings. When the appellant filed an application for rectification of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.2012 dismissing its app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
