TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vires to the Constitution being illegal and arbitrary to the extent that there is no provision for exemption of prior deposit of 25 per cent for filing the appeal by those persons/dealers whose entire goods are lying in the custody of the Department. In the alternative directions have been sought to respondent No. 1 to incorporate the proviso to section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, "the Act") providing that exemption would be given to the dealers/persons whose entire goods are lying in the custody of the Department and also providing for entertainment of the appeal of the petitioner without insisting on deposit of 25 per cent amount as the goods are lying in the custody of the Department. A further prayer for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se were merely samples. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated December 10, 2008, assessed penalty of Rs. 1,58,139 (Rs. 1,46,425 under section 51(7)(c) of the Act and further VAT of Rs. 11,714 under section 51(12) of the Act). The petitioners met the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, respondent No. 2, and explained the entire incident as well as the demand of respondent No. 3 to him. Respondent No. 2 assured to look into the matter but surprisingly a notice was received by the petitioner-firm to appear on December 10, 2008 (P2). It is averred in the petition that for filing statutory appeal, the petitioner has to deposit 25 per cent as per the provisions of the Act which the petitioner is not able to deposit as he has already suffered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authority has no discretion to entertain the appeal without deposit of 25 per cent of the amount of penalty, tax and interest as provided by section 62(5) of the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm. It is admitted position that the entire goods of the value of Rs. 2,98,850 have been detained by the respondents and are lying in their custody whereas the tax assessed is Rs. 1,58,139 which is far less than the value of the goods detained. At the rate of 25 per cent the amount of tax, penalty, etc., would be less than Rs. 40,000 whereas the jewellery worth Rs. 2,98,850 is....