M/S Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Ltd. v. The State Of Punjab & Others

VATAP No. 9 of 2018 (O&M) 1 Gurbax Singh 2018.04.21 12:54



    
        

       !"#"$%&%'())

*& +', -./ #/ %'&/0/ !%'1%2%!"#                     3300"44 '!    & 5"6! !" +', - '#!5"/&                     3 "&0'#"'!&   ( 71

 6
8

 
1    71

 6


 6
 91 







 
 



 , :8+2 / %!! 4;

 The delay in refilling the appeal is condoned.




 





 



  !
" 

#

$$%
& 

'
" ()
* 



 $+

$+
# 
 ,

!-

  !
"  !


& 

'
 !

()


.
,/

$+


0
-
$$ $/
 *
1 *
 ! 
2  

1
& )
'3




  0




4  !


1

  

 0  *






  

05

 

%6

#
0
 
5 *

* 7

 
  
  


8
0-
9
&

)
3

4  !


1

  

 0  *





!-
* *


2  








1

:



  -
1

  

 *
%6

#

 




VATAP No. 9 of 2018 (O&M) 2 

1
1
  *
0
#0
  
    

-

0
1 

 9
&

)
3

0 *




1 
1
 
1
!-
 
;8!
< 





  





      
 
& $)
/$
"


&=;)9
& )
3
4  !


1

  

* *

 0
 



9
&)
3




  0






!-

4  !



* 

  

 

 9
& )
3




  0




#
0 


  >,%,?
- *
1 

0

2



!
 


 

 9
&

)
3



+ $

$+


4  !




 #






-
$$$+


$ >


0 *


 $+

$+








-
$$ $/

 
1 

9
@


+ $

$+

4  !



 0 -


$6

#

 

*
 0

 

0
3
 *


0 *


 $+

$+

4  !


 0 






 

%6

#


!-
4
:



  -9
3.

A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee M/s Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited is a government company. It is engaged in the business of procurement of food grains and is duly registered under the provisions of the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). It regularly filed its returns and

VATAP No. 9 of 2018 (O&M) 3 also discharged its tax liability thereon. Original assessment for the year 2008-09 in case of the appellant-assessee was framed under Section 29(2) of the PVAT Act by the Designated Officer, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 18.9.2012. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hoshiarpur framed amendment in assessment under Section 29(7) of the PVAT Act vide order dated 29.7.2015, Annexure A.1 creating an additional demand of
 70,79,176/- (Tax =
 19,52,876/-, penalty under Section 53=
 29,29,314/- and interest under Section 32(3) =
21,96,986/-) Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority with a prayer to waive off the condition of pre deposit of 25% of the additional demand as prescribed under section 62(5) of the PVAT Act for entertainment of appeal.

The first appellate authority did not entertain the plea of the assessee to completely waive off the condition of pre deposit and directed to deposit 25% of tax demand. Vide order dated 26.10.2016, Annexure A.3, the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the appellant in default for failure to deposit the amount of pre deposit. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 21.7.2017, Annexure A.4, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee. 4.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5.

Admittedly, the original assessment in the present case was framed under Section 29(2) of the PVAT Act on 18.9.2012. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Hoshiarpur made amendment in assessment under Section 29(7) of the PVAT Act vide order dated 29.7.2015 creating an additional demand of
 70,79,176/- (Tax =
 19,52,876/-, penalty under Section 53 =
 29,29,314/- and interest under Section 32(3) =
21,96,986/-) On first appeal filed by the appellant before

VATAP No. 9 of 2018 (O&M) 4 the first appellate authority, the plea of the appellant to completely waive off the condition of pre deposit was not entertained and direction was given to the assessee to deposit 25% of the tax demand. The second appeal filed before the Tribunal by the appellant assessee was dismissed vide order dated 21.7.2017, Annexure A.4. Relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in Punjab State Power Corporation vs. State of Punjab and others, (2016) VST 66, it was concluded by the Tribunal that it was neither rarest of the rare case where further protection could be granted. The financial condition of the appellant was not bad so as to grant it full protection from making compliance of Section 62(5) of the Act.

Still the appellate authority had in its discretion relaxed the condition by way of directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the additional tax only instead of deposit of 25% of additional demand, penalty and interest. Thus, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

6.

In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Since the main appeal has been dismissed, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge April 04, 2018 (Anupinder Singh Grewal) 'gs'

Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No