TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1), order dated 18.07.2019 (P-2), 03.11.2020 (P-4) (CWP-2651-2022) 27.06.2018 (P-1), order dated 18.07.2019 (P-2) & 03.11.2020 (P-4) (2653-2022) for the assessment year 2015-16. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 2650-2023. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale yarn manufactured from pet bottle. The Petitioner is registered as a dealer with TIN no. 03061019393 under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short 'Act 2005'). 3. The business premises of the Petitioner was inspected by the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Mobile Wing, Patiala along with the officers of EIU Wing. The Petitioner produced its books of accounts before the office of EIU Wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, penalty and interest was not imposed on the petitioner and the penalty and interest proceedings were kept in abeyance. (i) M/s Guru Kirpa - Rs. 13,49,282/- (ii) M/s Balaji Sales Corp. - Rs. 71,031/- (iii) M/s Shri Ganesh Traders - Rs. 19,85,842/- (iv) M/s Metplast - Rs. 4,10,596/- (v) M/s Chinmastika Enterprises- Rs. 12,88,660/- 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.6.2018, the Petitioner filed Appeal No. 117/2019-20/Ldh before Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana (Respondent no. 3) and respondent no. 3 ordered the Petitioner to deposit 15% of the total demand for fulfilling the requirement of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act. However, due to poor financial condition, the Pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment under Section 29(2) of PVAT Act and the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority and produced the invoice as well as other relevant documents. However, the impugned order was passed created a demand of Rs. 27,76,882/-. The petitioner preferred appeal before DETC (Admin) Ludhiana along with an application for exemption of pre deposit of 25% and direction was issued to deposit 10% of the total demand by 21.03.2017 by relaxing pre-condition of deposit of 25%. But the petitioner did not deposit even 10% and the appeal was dismissed on 05.11.2019. Then the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking direction to respondent No. 2 to adjudicate the appeal on merits without insisting upon prior deposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce has been made to a chart depicting the turnover of the petitioner (R-1) and a chart depicting payment of GST in cash (R- 2). Further it has been submitted that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) has upheld the provisions of Section 62 (5) of the Punjab Vat Act being mandatory and has rejected the contention that the same is erroneous. The petitioner is in no more in financial difficulty, as the petitioner is paying GST regularly in cash and is thus not entitled to the concession earlier granted by the First Appellate Authority. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 13. The balance sheet for the financial year 2020-21 placed on record by the petitioner (P-6) is not being disputed by the res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerned provision in each of those cases was rejected. But the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Seth Nand Lal 1980 (Supp) SCC 574 was in the backdrop of what this Court considered to be meagre rate of the annual land-tax payable. The decision in Shyam Kishore (1993) 1 SCC 22 attempted to find a solution and provide some succour in cases involving extreme hardship but was well aware of the limitation. Same awareness was expressed in P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720 and in Har Devi Asnani (2011) 14 SCC 160 and it was stated that in cases of hardship a writ petition could be an appropriate remedy. But in the present case the High Court has gone a step further and found that the Appellate Authority would have implied power to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s clearly in error in answering question (c)." 25. As stated in P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720 and Har Devi Asnani (2011) 14 SCC 160, in genuine cases of hardship, recourse would still be open to the concerned person. However, it would be completely a different thing to say that the Appellate Authority itself can grant such relief. As stated in Shyam Kishore (1993) 1 SCC 22 any such exercise would make the provision itself unworkable and render the statutory intendment nugatory." In the present case, the petitioner is in debt and is paying installments of loan regularly and this fact is not being disputed by the respondents. Hence for all intents and purpose, the petitioner in order to run the business should be able to make the paymen....