KELMAR (INDIA) EXPORTS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner firm i.e M/s Kelmar (India) Exports is registered under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (here-in-after called as 'PVAT Act') and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (here-in-after called as 'CST Act').

(2.) The 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.

(3.) 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%. A direction was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner to deposit 10% of the total demand of Rs.27,76,882/-, which comes to Rs.2,77,688/- by relaxing pre-condition of deposit of 25%. The said amount was to be deposited by 21.03.2017. However, in spite of directions issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 21.03.2017. Being aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab VAT Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 05.11.2019 on the ground of non-deposit of 25% of the total demand. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for quashing of impugned order dated 05.11.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal as well as order dated 21.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2. A prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to adjudicate the appeal on merits without insisting upon prior deposit of 25% as the petitioner is having a good case on merits and the firm is suffering a huge loss in business and is not in a position to pay the said amount of 25%.