TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igarh (for brevity, "the Tribunal") in V.A.T. Appeal No. 65 of 2006-07 (subject-matter of challenge in V.A.T. Ap. No. 17 of 2008) and order dated April 20, 2006 passed by the Tribunal in V.A.T. Appeal No. 17 of 2005-06 (subject-matter of challenge in V.A.T. Ap. No. 5 of 2007), rejecting the claim of the dealer-appellant(s) for input tax credit on stocks being timebarred. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in these appeals are that the VAT Act has come into force with effect from April 1, 2005, which has repealed the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, "the Sales Tax Act") with effect from March 31, 2005. Under section 5(1A) of the Sales Tax Act the State Government had declared various goods on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the designated officer on May 23, 2005, who rejected the claim on the ground of delay, vide order dated December 5, 2005. The appeal filed by the dealer-appellant before the appellate authority was dismissed vide order dated April 24, 2006, which has been upheld by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated August 7, 2006. The dealer-appellant in V.A.T. Ap. No. 5 of 2007 is engaged in the business of trading of lubricant oils. The claim of input tax credit in this case was filed on May 20, 2005, which was rejected by the designated officer treating the same being time-barred, vide order dated October 24, 2005. The appeal filed by the dealer-appellant was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated January 23, 2006. Further appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....njab v. City Petro [2009] 21 VST 353; [2009] 33 PHT 167 (P&H). In the said case the Revenue had preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the delay in filing the claim for input tax credit should have been condoned as per the provisions of section 14 of the VAT Act and rule 25(1)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for brevity, "the VAT Rules"). The respondent, City Petro in that case filed its input tax credit claim on June 18, 2005, which was rejected by the designated officer on the ground of delay. In the appeal filed under section 62(1) of the VAT Act, the appellate authority set aside the order of the designated officer and remanded the case to him for passing a fresh order. The designated off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;appointed day' of April 1, 2005 would require a dealer to file his return within 45 days, which would expire on May 15, 2005. This could never be the intention of the Legislature which has provided by sections 13 and 14 of the VAT Act that a dealer can file his statement of input tax credit claim subject to certain conditions. Moreover, it is a transitory statute repealing the earlier Sales Tax Act. The goods which have already suffered sales tax could not be subjected to another doze of tax. 10.. It is, thus, evident that even if period of 45 days is given from the 'appointed day', i.e., April 1, 2005, no dealer could have filed his input tax credit claim nor could the claim be filed with effect from April 24, 2006 when fu....