Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE delay in filing VATAP Nos. 110 to 113, 117 to 120 and 127 of 2013 is condoned. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 14 appeals; i.e., VATAP Nos. 110 to 113, 117 to 120, 147 to 151 and 127 of 2013, as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in 'all these appeals is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 110 of 2013.
(2.) VATAP No. 110 of 2013 has been preferred by the State under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated March 11, 2013, annexure A5 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (in short, "the Tribunal"), claiming following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether, the order passed by the learned Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Shubh Timb Steels Limited v. State of Punjab : [2010] 31 VST 85 (P & H) is sustainable in law when in the present case, the respondent had intentionally withheld the legitimate purchase tax due to be deposited along with the returns? (iii) Whether the learned Tribunal had rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent when the amendment dated April 20, 1998 is applicable with effect from the date of notification, i.e., prospectively and not retrospectively? (iv) Whether the dealer is entitled to relief of legitimate tax payable by the respondent voluntarily along with the returns, but avoided its payment willfully, solely on the ground of limitation? (v) Whether the respondent is entitled to pocket the purchase tax withheld intentionally but while selling their finished products and by -products the said element was kept in mind and added the same in the sale price of particular item produced out of sugarcane which had ultimately been encashed by the respondent - Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved as narrated in VATAP No. 110 of 2013 are that the respondent -dealer is engaged in manufacturing of sugar, molasses, press mud, etc. It has been authorized to purchase various goods for use in the manufacture of these goods. The sugarcane is the main raw material. It filed its quarterly returns for the year 1989 -90 in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short, "the PGST Act") read with rule 20 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949 (in short, "the PGST Rules") but did not deposit the purchase tax leviable on the purchase of sugarcane along with the returns. Accordingly, notice under section 11 of the PGST Act was issued to the respondent by the Assessing Authority. The file was transferred to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Insp.) (AETC) by the Excise and, Taxation Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated December 12, 2002. The respondent appeared along with its books of account. As per the returns, the respondent had shown the purchase of sugarcane to the tune of Rs. 5,77,18,035 on which purchase tax payable at the rate of 8.8 percent, comes to Rs. 50,79,187, which was payable by the respondent along with the returns. Since the respondent did not deposit the purchase tax along with the returns, it was determined by way of framing assessment for the year 1989 -90 by the AETC under section 11 of the PGST Act vide order dated August 29, 2003 creating an additional demand of Rs. 51,75,730 including the demand of Rs. 50,79,187 on account of purchase tax leviable on the purchase of sugarcane. The assessment order along with demand notice was sent to the respondent to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the order. The respondent instead of depositing the amount filed appeal under section 20 of the Act before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (DETC), which was dismissed vide order dated May 20, 2005, annexure A3. The respondent filed second appeal before the Tribunal which was accepted vide order dated March 11, 2013, annexure A5, on the ground of limitation holding that after the expiry of five years, the assessing authority did not have the jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Hence the instant appeals by the State.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;