2011 (4) TMI 1259

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vocate-General, Punjab, for the appellants JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") against the order of the Punjab VATTribunal dated October 4, 2010 in Appeal (VAT) No. 124 of 2010, annexure A4, claiming following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the differential amount received by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was that it was liable to pay VATonly on the sale price and not on the amount given by the State. The order of the assessment was upheld by the appellate authority but the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee and set aside the addition to the turnover beyond the sale price. It was held: "It is admitted fact that the appellant had shown the sale at a value for which invoices had been issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d appellant is not liable to pay tax on the differential price. Order of the designated officer dated April 29, 2009 and that of the DETC is liable to be set aside." We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in the profit and loss accounts, the assessee has shown receipt of amount from the State on account of sale of molasses in....