VAT Appeal No. 26 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No. 26 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.4.2011 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Anapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This Appeal has been filed under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order dated 22.7.2010 Annexure P-5 passed by the VAT Tribunal proposing following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the order passed by Ld. Tribunal is sustainable in law? ii) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal by relying upon judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Shreyans Industries Ltd. which has already been challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court is sustainable in law? iii) Whether the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent when the Commissioner had exercised the power in accordance with Section 11(10) of the Act, 1948 before the expiry of the period of limitation as the returns were filed on 5.9.2005? VAT Appeal No. 26 of 2011 -2- **** iv) Whether the provisions of Section 11(3) is directory in nature especially when the legislature has empowered the Commissioner to extend the period of limitation by exercising power under Section 11(10) of the Act, 1948? v) Whether the Tribunal is empowered to entertain the appeal without deposit of 25% of the amount of additional demand in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Emerald International Ltd. Vs., State of Punjab (1997) 10 PHT-1? vi) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside assessment order itself when issue before it was only with regard to the deposit of 25% of the additional demand? 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though on merits the issue has been decided against the State in VAT Appeal No.25 of 2011 State of Punjab and another Vs. M/s Anapurna Impex Pvt. Ltd. by order passed today, only point which survives in this appeal is the effect of not depositing 25% of the additional demand as a condition for entertaining the appeal. 3. Since the impugned order of assessment has itself been held to be void abinitio, we are unable to hold that there is any illegality in the impugned order in considering the appeal on merits. 4. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 20,2010 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge