2020 (11) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....firm deals in the trade of Iron and Steel goods. Notice for assessment under Section 29(2) of PVAT Act was issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer, Ludhiana-II. The authorized representative of the petitioner firm appeared before the concerned authority and produced the invoices as well as other relevant documents. Respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) and created a demand of Rs. 27,76,882/-, which is under challenge in the present petition. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner firm filed first appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Admin), Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana, Punjab (respondent No.2) along with an application for exemption of prior deposit of 25....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... amount of pre-deposit could have been reduced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Civil Appeal No.7358 of 2019 titled as M/s TecnimontPvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and others decided on 18.09.2019 as well as judgment of this Court in case CWP No.33146 of 2019 titled as M/s Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana vs State of Punjab and others decided on 28.11.2019 in support of his arguments. Learned counsel for the respondents-State Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General (Punjab) has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that pre-deposit of 25% is a mandatory requirement as per provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act. H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nths but still that amount was not deposited. It was observed that the petitioner was having remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking any relaxation or waiving off the amount for hearing of the appeal. No doubt, any specific ground has not been taken for showing the financial hardship but it has been mentioned in second prayer that due to financial loss in business, the petitioner could not deposit the amount of 25% as pre-deposit. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would deposit 10% of the total demand as directed by the Appellate Authority, in case, his appeal is heard on merits. Although, as per provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Ac....