Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) Prayer in this petition is for declaring the provisions of Sec. 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, the PVAT Act") to be ultravires the Constitution of India being violative of Article 14 as it provides mandatory deposit of 25% tax, interest and penalty as a condition precedent for hearing of appeal without giving any discretion to the appellate authority to waive such deposit. Further prayer has been made for quashing the orders dated 19.12.2012, 29.11.2013 and 12.2.2015, Annexures P. 1, P. 3, P. 3/A, P. 5 and P. 6 respectively.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a dealer duly registered under the provisions of the PVAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). It is engaged in the business of running a rice mill at Faridkot. It is an exempted unit having been granted exemption from 10.12.1999 to 9.12.2009. The petitioner had an unutilised exemption of Rs. 68,84,716/ - as on 1.4.2005. For the assessment year 2008 -09, the petitioner was entitled to exemption upto 9.12.2009 whereafter it was liable to pay tax as a normal dealer. Assessment proceedings were initiated under Sec. 29(2) of the PVAT Act. The Assessing authority observed that since the dealer had failed to export 25% of its turnover outside the country during the year in question, it was liable to pay tax on its entire turnover. The Assessing authority framed assessment raising a demand of Rs. 10,09,687/ - under the PVAT Act followed by another demand amounting to Rs. 5,99,542/ - under the Punjab Infrastructure (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeals before the first appellate authority i.e. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [DETC] alongwith applications for entertainment of appeals without insisting upon 25% of the prior deposit as required under Sec. 62(5) of the PVAT Act. Vide orders dated 29.11.2013, Annexures P. 3 and P. 3/A, the appeals were dismissed without giving any time to the petitioner to deposit the payment of 25%. The petitioner filed appeals before the Tribunal. Vide orders dated 12.2.2015, Annexures P. 5 and P. 6, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;