TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at due to financial loss in business, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of 25% as pre-deposit. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would deposit 10% of the total demand as directed by the Appellate Authority, in case, his appeal is heard on merits. Although, as per provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act, no appeal can be entertained unless the same is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the prior minimum payment of twenty-five percent of the total amount of additional demand created, penalty and interest, if any. By considering the interest of justice and also the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit 10% as pre-deposit instead of 25% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of ₹ 27,76,882/-, which is under challenge in the present petition. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner firm filed first appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Admin), Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana, Punjab (respondent No.2) along with an application for exemption of prior deposit of 25%. A direction was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner to deposit 10% of the total demand of ₹ 27,76,882/-, which comes to ₹ 2,77,688/- by relaxing pre-condition of deposit of 25%. The said amount was to be deposited by 21.03.2017. However, in spite of directions issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 21.03.2017. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.11.2019 in support of his arguments. Learned counsel for the respondents-State Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General (Punjab) has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that pre-deposit of 25% is a mandatory requirement as per provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act. He also submits that nothing is mentioned in the petition as well as in the appeals that it was a case of financial hardship. Mr. Gupta has also relied upon the judgment of Hon ble the Apex Court in case Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and others 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1228 as well as judgment of this Court in case CWP No.16751 of 2011 titled as Larsen Toubro Limited vs The State of Haryana and others decided on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posit the amount of 25% as pre-deposit. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would deposit 10% of the total demand as directed by the Appellate Authority, in case, his appeal is heard on merits. Although, as per provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act, no appeal can be entertained unless the same is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the prior minimum payment of twenty-five percent of the total amount of additional demand created, penalty and interest, if any. It is not disputed that the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to deposit 10% instead of 25% as pre-deposit for hearing of the appeal but the petitioner could not deposit the said amount as well. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
