TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 1 and 8 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved therein is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 1 of 2016. 2. VATAP No. 1 of 2016 has been filed by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 21.9.2015 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) in Appeal No. 183 of 2014, for the assessment year 2001-02, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Against the order dated 20.1.2010, the appellant filed SLP(C) No. 10619 of 2010 before the Supreme Court who vide order dated 29.8.2013 disposed of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to question the correctness or otherwise of the assessment order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Assessing Authority by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. In pursuance thereto, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [DETC(A)]. The DETC(A) vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure A-2) upheld the assessment order, Annexure A-1, and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-2, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.4.2015 (Annexure A-3) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideration in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) expressly provides that a part of the amount of purchase tax collected under subsection (3) is to be utilized for the purpose of the Board and the Council as grant but did not indicate that the entirety of this collection was solely earmarked for the purpose of expenditure of the Board or the Council. Such a provision is absent in the enactments before us. Infact, the statement of object and reasons of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 expressly state as under:- Statement of Objects and Reasons- With the promulgation of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, with effect from the 8th May, 1952, this regulation of sugarcane ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax. The amounts collected may well be available to the legislature to be spent for the purposes mentioned therein and in the statement of objects and reasons. These are aspects which can be gone into only by the Supreme Court and not by this Court for accepting these submissions would in effect result in this Court holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mill s case (supra) is not good law. 13. Considering the view taken by us on Mr. Goyal s submission, it is not necessary to consider Mr. Jain s further submission that the appellant has infact challenged the validity of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and that such a challenge could not have been taken before the authorities. 14. In the circumstances, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
