Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of seven appeals (VAT Appeal Nos. 28, 30 to 35 of 2008), which are arising from the common order dated February 29, 2008, passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby seven separate appeals, filed by the department, have been entertained, after condoning the delay in filing the appeals, and those appeals have been fixed for hearing on merits.
(2.) IN these appeals, the appellant has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the Tribunal has entertained the second appeals, filed by the department, as the earlier appeals, filed by the department, were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated November 23, 2007, without any liberty to file fresh appeals on the same cause of action. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no provision under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to file any supplementary appeal or a second appeal against the same order. In the present case, vide a common order dated November 27, 2006, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, after setting aside the assessment order of the assessing authority, passed in favour of the petitioner, had remanded the matter for fresh decision. Against that order, the department filed seven separate appeals before the Tribunal. The petitioner objected the maintainability of those appeals on the ground that no sanction was granted by the competent authority for filing the appeals, but sanction was granted only for filing application. When this objection was raised by the petitioner, Counsel for the department made statement before the Tribunal that the department be permitted to withdraw the appeals to enable them to file fresh appeals after removal of the defects in the sanction order. On that statement, the Tribunal vide its order dated November 23, 2007 ordered those appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. Immediately, thereafter, the department filed fresh appeals with proper sanction order by the competent authority, along with the applications for condonation of delay, against the aforesaid common order dated November 27, 2006, passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The petitioner raised objection regarding maintainability of those appeals on the ground that earlier the Tribunal, while ordering the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn, did not grant any specific permission/liberty to the department to file fresh appeals with proper sanction order. The petitioner also raised objection that under the provision of the Act, the appellate authority cannot permit withdrawal of an appeal with a liberty to file fresh one after removal of the defects in the sanction order. The Tribunal, vide the common order dated February 29, 2008, has rejected the objections raised by the petitioner and after condoning the delay in filing the appeals, entertained the appeals, filed by the department. Against the said order, the instant appeals have been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that once the appeals, filed by the department without the sanction order, had been dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal, the second appeals filed by the department were not maintainable, therefore, the same should not have been entertained by the Tribunal, particularly when at the time of permitting the department to withdraw the earlier appeals, no permission was granted to file fresh appeals with proper sanction order. Learned Counsel submits that even the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to permit an appeal to be withdrawn with permission to file fresh appeal on the same cause of action, as the Tribunal has to decide the appeal on merits.;