- (1.) The petitioner challenges dismissal of his appeal and various other applications arising from its failure to comply with an order of pre-deposit. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. Vide order dated May 28, 2004, the petitioner was directed to deposit 25 per cent of the total additional demand and to produce tax deposit receipt on June 23, 2004, failing which the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The petitioner did not comply with this order leading to dismissal of the appeal. The petitioner approached the Sales Tax Tribunal-II, Punjab. Vide order dated October 6, 2004, the petitioner was allowed to deposit a nominal amount of 25 per cent for cases up to the year 1999-2000. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for rectification by pointing out that inadvertently the amount demanded with respect to assessment year 2000-01 had been omitted. The application was allowed on January 11, 2005 by directing deposit of 25 per cent of the additional demand by March 31, 2005. The petitioner filed another application, styled as an application for rectification and also prayed for extension of time. The Tribunal vide order dated July 5, 2005, declined rectification on October 25, 2005. As the petitioner did not deposit the duty demanded within the time granted the appeal was dismissed on May 17, 2006 by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. The appeal filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner had already filed a reference application on December 31, 2005 which is pending, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the appeal. It is contended that even otherwise as the petitioner has deposited the entire amount, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner may be directed to hear the appeal on merits.
(3.) The counsel for the State of Punjab submits that though the conduct of the petitioner does not merit any special consideration but as the petitioner has deposited 25 per cent of the additional demand, this court may pass such order as it may deem appropriate after taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner.;