Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant -assessee under Sec. 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the PVAT Act") against the order dated 18.11.2014, Annexure A.14 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 78 of 2014 for the assessment year 2009 -10, claiming following substantial questions of law: - "a) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition of pre -deposit under Sec. 62(5) of the PVAT is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? b) Whether on the true and correct interpretation of Sec. 68 (PVAT) read with Sec. 100 of CPC, the High Court can exercise the jurisdiction for waiving the condition of pre -deposit under Sec. 62(5) of the PVAT -
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant -company is engaged in the business of developing the land purchased from various authorities and individuals. It is constructing residential apartments and commercial buildings with the purpose of selling them for consideration to interested persons and continue to be the owner of the said property till the execution of registered sale deed as per the terms of the agreement to sell. For the assessment year 2010 -11, assessment order under Sec. 29(2) of the PVAT Act was passed on 24.1.2014 raising demand of Rs. 80,67,170/ - after allowing the benefit of input tax credit and tax paid. A penalty under Sec. 56 of the PVAT Act of Rs. 1,61,34,339/ - was levied alongwith interest under Sec. 32(3) of the PVAT Act for Rs. 56,87,354/ -. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [DETC(A)] by the assessee in appeal. For the assessment year 2012 -13, the provisional assessment under Sec. 30 of the PVAT Act was passed on 28.5.2013, Annexure A.1 which was challenged before the DETC(A). Vide order dated 1.7.2013, Annexure A.2, the DETC(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non -fulfilment of the provisions of Sec. 62(5) of the PVAT Act i.e. pre -deposit of 25% of the additional demand before institution of the appeal. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 8.8.2013, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with the direction to deposit 25% of additional tax demand. The appellant challenged the said order before this court through CWP No. 22437 of 2013 wherein notice of motion alongwith notice regarding stay was issued. In the meantime, the respondent passed another assessment order dated 23.10.2013, Annexure A.5 creating additional demand of Rs. 2,04,85,306/ - which was challenged in appeal before DETC(A) alongwith application for admission of appeal without pre -deposit of 25% of additional demand. The DETC(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 8.1.2014, Annexure A.8. On 24.1.2014, assessment order for the assessment year 2010 -11 was made creating demand of Rs. 2,98,88,864/ - comprising of Rs. 80,67,170/ - as tax, Rs. 1,61,34,339/ - as penalty and Rs. 56,87,354/ - as interest. According to the appellant on 31.1.2014, the Apex Court in Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer and another, WP(C) No. 1055 of 2013 granted stay of operation and implementation of sub -section (5) of Sec. 62 of the PVAT Act. Vide order dated 7.2.2014, Annexure A.11 in CWP No. 2343 of 2014 filed by the appellant, stay and interim order was granted in the same terms as per the order of the Apex Court. On 17.2.2014, the order dated 8.1.2014, Annexure A.12, passed by the DETC(A) was challenged in appeal by the appellant alongwith prayer for grant of stay before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.11.2014, Annexure A.14, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant -assessee.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;