Pre-deposit in VAT appeal upheld as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal's direction requiring pre-deposit before the first appellate authority could hear the VAT appeal on merits was upheld because no illegality or perversity was shown. The challenge under Section 68 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 was found not to raise any substantial question of law, so interference with the impugned order was unwarranted. The pre-deposit condition therefore remained effective, and the appeal failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's direction requiring pre-deposit and its refusal to interfere with the appellate order gave rise to any substantial question of law warranting interference.

Analysis: The appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 challenged the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit in the amount offered by the appellant before the first appellate authority could hear the matter on merits. The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal's approach and held that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's pre-deposit direction failed and the appeal was rejected on merits.

---