VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011
Date of decision: 19.5.2011
State of Punjab and another
... Appellants
Versus
M/s Novelty Associates Pvt. Limited
...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellants.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under section 68(2)
of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (‘the Act’) for setting aside order
dated 29.10.2010 passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab in Appeal
No.306 of 2010, claiming following substantial questions of law:-
“i) Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether the impugned order of the learned VAT
Tribunal is sustainable so as to allow the respondents to
maintain their appeal without paying the balance amount
of the pre-deposit so as to complete the 25% of the
amount of tax and penalty impugned as additional
demand raised against them in the appeal?
ii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 2whether the undisputed amount of tax already deposited
alongwith the return could be considered so as to
calculate the 25% of the pre-deposit of the impugned
demand against which the appeal under section 62(5) of
the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 was being filed?
iii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case,
whether the appeal of the respondents under section 62
(1) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 before the Deputy
Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar
Division, Jalandhar was maintainable without payment
of any amount as the pre-deposit beyond the amount of
Rs.31,35,240/- (Rupees thirty one lacs, thirty five
thousand, two hundred and forty only) as already
deposited by them?”
2. The assessee has preferred an appeal which is pending before
the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the deposit already made by the
assessee being more than 25% of the total demand raised, the appeal was
liable to be considered on merits as bar under section 62(5) of theAct did
not apply.
3. Only ground which has been raised on behalf of the appellants
is that the deposit was made before the demand was raised and thus, the
appeal could not be heard on merits.
4. There is no merit in the submission. There is no requirement
under section 62(5) to deposit 25% after the demand was raised. The deposit
already made can certainly be taken into account as held by the Tribunal
following order of this Court in M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (1) Limited v.
State of Punjab, CWP No.18650 of 2009 decided on 29.7.2010.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute
applicability of judgment of this Court in M/s Ahluwalia Contracts.
VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 3
6. Thus, no substantial question of law arises.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Acting Chief Justice
May 19, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal)
'gs' Judge
VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 4