AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the dealer under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 18.9.2015 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Punjab Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 122 of 2015, claiming the following substantial question of law: - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, both the authorities below were justified in dismissing the appeals of the appellant by holding the condition of pre deposit of 25% as mandatory for the entertainment of appeal?
(2.) A few facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is a dealer having TIN No. 03402047018 and is engaged in the business of Cotton Ginning and Rice Shelling etc. It had filed all the returns in VAT 15 and 20 for the assessment year 2011 -12 and availed the Input Tax Credit (ITC). A notice dated 28.6.2014 was issued to the appellant by the Excise and Taxation Officer for the assessment year 2011 -12 under Section 29(2) of the Act. The assessment was framed for the assessment year 2011 -12 vide order dated 24.9.2014 (Annexure P -1) by creating additional demands of Rs. 1,08,05,499/ - under the Act and Rs. 1,74,165/ - under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment order, Annexure A -1, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [DETC(A)], who vide order dated 16.2.2015 (Annexure P -2) dismissed the appeal for non -deposit of 25% under Section 62(5) of the Act. Still dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.9.2015 (Annexure P -3) upheld the order of the DETC(A) and dismissed the appeal. This Court in CWP No.26920 of 2013 (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 23.12.2015 wherein the vires of Section 62(5) of the Act were challenged, had upheld the same, but remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to decide the prayer for interim protection in accordance with the observations made therein. Thereafter, the appellant filed CWP No. 364 of 2016 challenging the vires of Section 62 (5) of the Act which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 11.1.2016 (Annexure P -4) as the vires of Section 62(5) of the Act had been upheld. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.) Notice of motion was issued to the respondents for today.;