TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provides mandatory deposit of 25% tax, interest and penalty as a condition precedent for hearing of revision without giving any discretion to the revisional authority to waive such deposit. Further prayer has been made for quashing the demand notice dated 2.2.2015, Annexure P.10 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,13,09,680/-. 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It had established two cement grinding units in the State of Punjab at Ropar and Bathinda in the years 1994 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner had also expanded its manufacturing facilities ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.2014, the petitioner received a notice whereby respondent No.2 initiated revisional proceedings under Section 65 of the PVAT Act read with Section 9(2) of the CST Act for the assessment year in question observing that there was huge difference of sale price per bag of cement for inter state sale and value of per bag of cement for stock transfer and therefore the case was taken up for revision under section 65 of the PVAT Act. The petitioner filed written statement on 10.11.2014 inter alia pleading that initiation of proceedings itself was bad as the same was barred by limitation. On 14.11.2014, the petitioner received another notice. The petitioner was asked to show cause as to why penalty and interest be not imposed. The petitioner filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le in view of the order dated 17.7.2014, Annexure P.7, it may be considered towards deposit of 25% of the additional demand raised by the revisional authority. It was also prayed that in terms of Rule 74 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005 (in short, "the PVAT Rules") recovery of balance amount may be stayed as the petitioner had complied with the condition of pre-deposit of 25%. On 21.1.2015, the Excise and Taxation Officer issued notice proposing to impose penalty and interest. The petitioner submitted reply dated 2.2.2015, Annexure P.9 stating that its revision before the Tribunal was pending. When the executive of the petitioner had attended the proceedings on 6.2.2015, he was again issued a demand notice dated 2.2.2015, Annexure P.10 directi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterim injunction/protection is embedded in Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act. Instead of rushing to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance can be remedied at the stage of first appellate authority. As a sequel, it would follow that the provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act are directory in nature meaning thereby that the first appellate authority is empowered to partially or completely waive the condition of pre-deposit contained therein in the given facts and circumstances. It is not to be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course in view of the special nature of taxation and revenue laws. Only when a strong prima facie case is made out will the first appellate authority consider whether t....