A.B. SUGARS LTD. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 1 and 8 of 2016 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved therein is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from VATAP No. 1 of 2016.

(2.) VATAP No. 1 of 2016 has been filed by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 21.9.2015 (Annexure A -4) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab , Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 183 of 2014, for the assessment year 2001 -02, claiming the following substantial questions of law: -

(3.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is running a sugar mill and is engaged in the manufacturing of sugar, baggage and molasses. It filed its return for the assessment year 2001 -02 and did not pay tax on the purchase of sugarcane in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others (1999) 115 STC 358 (SC). Accordingly, a notice was issued to the appellant. The Assessing Authority framed the assessment vide order dated 30.3.2005 (Annexure A -1) by creating a demand of Rs. 23,51,557/ - for non -payment of purchase tax on sugarcane. The assessee challenged the order, Annexure A -1, by filing CWP No. 8526 of 2005 which was tagged with other similar writ petitions. This Court vide order dated 20.1.2010 dismissed all the writ petitions following the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab and another 1995(1) SCC 67. Against the order dated 20.1.2010, the appellant filed SLP(C) No. 10619 of 2010 before the Supreme Court who vide order dated 29.8.2013 disposed of the appeal with liberty to the appellant to question the correctness or otherwise of the assessment order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Assessing Authority by filing an appeal before the appellate authority. In pursuance thereto, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) [DETC(A)]. The DETC(A) vide order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure A -2) upheld the assessment order, Annexure A -1, and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A -2, the appellant filed an appeal on 25.4.2015 (Annexure A -3) before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.9.2015 (Annexure A -4) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeals.