9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay in payment of shortfall in the court fee. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deficiency in court fee has been made good, the delay, if any, be condoned. Application is allowed and the delay, if any, in making good the deficiency in court fee, is condoned. 3. VATAP No. 6 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 8.10.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 11 of 2015, for the assessment year 2011-12. claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the appellant was taken up for scrutiny under Section 29(2) of the Act by issuing a notice. The Assessing Authority-respondent No.4 completed the assessment vide order dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure A-1) and, inter alia, levied purchase tax at the rate of 2.5% of the value of purchase price at Rs. 43,24,87,908/- which comprised of Rs. 27,59,33,761/- being the Statutory Minimum Price fixed by the Government of India for the year under consideration and Rs. 15,65,54,227/- paid by the appellant on the directions of the State of Punjab. The assessee had not taken Rs. 15,65,54,227/- into consideration for calculating and depositing purchase tax. Besides this, the Assessing Authority although levied purchase tax on sugarcane yet did not allow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase & Supply) Act, 1953 is in force which is a special Act?" Answering the said substantial questions against the assessee, it was held as under :- "10. We, therefore, cannot take a view different from the one taken by the Supreme Court in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (supra) on the ground that the Supreme Court did not consider the provisions of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953. Nor we are entitled to ignore this judgment on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar (supra) as in M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab (supra) the Supreme Court considered the very provisions that fall f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equate funds for extensive Cane Development work in the areas supplying cane to sugar factories with the result that the factories are not getting cane of good quality. The Bill is being introduced in order to provide for a rational distribution of sugarcane to factories for its development on organized scientific lines making adequate funds available after imposing a tax on sugarcane purchases by factories, to protect the interests of cane growers and of the Industry and to put the new Act permanently on the Statute Books" (vide Punjab Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 9th October, 1953, p. 1630)." 12. Faced with this, Mr. Goel submitted that in any event in view of Article 266 of the Constitution of India the amounts collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
