9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue Added Tax Act, 2005 as applicable to UT, Chandigarh (in short "the Act") against the order dated 31.5.2018 (Annexure A-8) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 31 of 2012, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal is justified in dismissing the appeal on account of non-maintainability of appeal being filed under Section 63 of the PVAT Act and on the contrary, the said appeal also got dismissed for noncompliance of Section 63(3) of the PVAT Act, 2005? ii. Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law as the penalty impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for the period from 1.7.2000 to 14.12.2005 and additional demand of Rs. 18,11,494/- was created. Thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 11(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the PGST Act"). The Penalizing Officer vide order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure A-5) imposed penalty of Rs. 4,55,000/-, i.e. 25% of the amount of tax upon the appellant. Against the order, Annexure A-5, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [for brevity "the DETC(A)"]. The DETC(A) vide order dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure A-6) dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 63 of the Act before the Tribunal on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority, reference has been made to Section 11(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act, while relying upon decision of the Division Bench in Battulal's case (supra), whereas it was Section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 which was under consideration in the said decision. In pursuance to the assessment order dated 27.12.2010, the penalty had been imposed vide order dated 30.5.2011 which had been affirmed by the DETC (A) and the Tribunal. 8. The Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Battulal's case (supra) having been overruled by the Full Bench decision in Shyama Charan Shukla's case (supra) which decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in Shyama Charan Shukla's case (supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
