TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout insisting for pre-deposit of 25% of the additional demand - HELD THAT:- It is not found that the present case to be of such extreme hardship, where this Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere and waive the mandatory requirement of Section 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act. The mandatory provisions under Section 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act need to be complied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petition No.4810 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA Present: Mr. Umang Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. (PROCEEDINGS THROUGH V.C.) AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Petitioner-M/s Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act, which mandates the deposit of 25% of the total amount of tax, penalty and interest, if any, prior to entertaining the appeal. It has further been prayed that the mandamus be issued directing the First Appellate Authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same on merits without insisting for pre-deposit of 25% of the additional demand as per the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nimum deposit of 25% of the total tax liability provided under Section 62 (5) of the Punjab VAT Act but in the case of extreme hardship, this Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays for the said relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and on going thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow we turn to question (c) as framed by the High Court and consider whether the conclusions drawn by the High Court while answering said question were correct or not. 4. In the light of the above, the petitioner having not complied with the mandatory requirement of the statute, cannot assert and challenge the order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the First Appellate Authority and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
