Post-repeal appellate jurisdiction and penalty for suppressed sales were assessed under the later tax statute's saving and appeal scheme.

Under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the saving clause preserved prior liabilities and proceedings while the appellate scheme under the later Act governed Tribunal orders passed after its commencement. On that basis, a High Court appeal under section 68 was treated as maintainable even though the proceedings arose under the repealed Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, displacing the earlier reference remedy. The text also notes that penalty for carrying goods with improper documents and suppressing sales was sustained where the dealer admitted the transaction and sought only leniency in quantum, because no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal to the High Court under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was maintainable in respect of proceedings arising under the repealed Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed for carrying goods with improper documents and suppression of sales disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal to the High Court under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was maintainable in respect of proceedings arising under the repealed Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 92 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 repealed the earlier sales tax statute but preserved prior acts, liabilities, proceedings, and the effect of rules and notifications saved under the repealing clause. The right of appeal was treated as governed by the law in force when the Tribunal decided the matter, and the later enactment provided a statutory appeal to the High Court on a substantial question of law. The earlier remedy by reference under the repealed law was therefore displaced for Tribunal orders passed after the commencement of the 2005 Act.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and the preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed for carrying goods with improper documents and suppression of sales disclosed any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Analysis: The material showed admission of the transaction and only a plea for leniency in the quantum of penalty. The finding was that the dealer had suppressed sales by charging lesser tax and the authority exercised discretion in imposing penalty under the relevant penal provision. On those facts, the penalty could not be characterised as excessive, and no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose and the challenge to the penalty failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was competent but the merits did not justify interference, so the impugned order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-repeal appeal to the High Court is governed by the saving and appellate scheme of the later statute where the Tribunal's order is passed after its commencement, and no interference lies in the absence of a substantial question of law against a penalty sustained on admitted suppression of sales.

---