https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383592 Delay of 47 days in refiling and 5 days in filing the appeal was held insignificant and the applications for condonation were allowed. On the substantive challenge, the appellant conceded that the dispute was covered by binding Division Bench precedent interpreting Section 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act to require deposit of 25% of the tax for entertaining an appeal, while recognising the First Appellate Authority's power to waive that precondition in appropriate cases. In view of that precedent and the concession, the court found no occasion to examine the taxation or reassessment issues and dismissed the appeal. en-us Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jul 2019 07:17:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383592 Delay of 47 days in refiling and 5 days in filing the appeal was held insignificant and the applications for condonation were allowed. On the substantive challenge, the appellant conceded that the dispute was covered by binding Division Bench precedent interpreting Section 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act to require deposit of 25% of the tax for entertaining an appeal, while recognising the First Appellate Authority's power to waive that precondition in appropriate cases. In view of that precedent and the concession, the court found no occasion to examine the taxation or reassessment issues and dismissed the appeal. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 02 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383592