Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 29 July, 2010
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
`IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.18650 of 2009
Date of decision: 29.7.2010
M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd.
-----Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Punjab and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shaweta Malhotra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
1. This petition seeks quashing of order, Annexure P-9, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner in terms of Section 62(5) of the Act for non-deposit of 25% of the tax.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Demand Notice, Annexure P-3, mentioning that as against the amount of tax due being about Rs.4 crores, the petitioner had already paid more than Rs.3 crores and thus, it could not be held that even 25% of the tax had not been paid. It is also submitted that the petitioner has raised question of jurisdiction and therefore, the entire amount of assessed tax is in issue.
CWP No.18650 of 2009 2
3. On 7.12.2009, following order was passed:-
"It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited more than 25% of the amount disputed in appeal and finding in the impugned order, Annexure P-9, that 25% of the remaining amount is required to be deposited is contrary to the statutory provisions.
Notice to respondent No.1.
Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl.A.G., Punjab, present in Court, accepts notice and seeks time to take instructions.
List again on 14.01.2010."
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. In view of undisputed position that the petitioner has paid more than 25% of the amount, the view taken by the appellate authority that 25% should be worked out on the balance amount of tax due, cannot be accepted.
6. Accordingly, impugned order, Annexure P-9, dated 5.11.2009 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
7. The petitioner my appear before the said authority for further proceedings on November 15, 2010.
The petition is disposed of.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
July 29, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL )
ashwani JUDGE