IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VAT Appeal No.49 of 2010 & other connected appeal being VAT Appeal No.50 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.8.2010 M/s Bharat International. -----Appellant. Vs. The State of Punjab & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Naveen Rattam, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. This order will dispose of VAT Appeal Nos.49 and 50 of 2010, as both the appeals involve common questions of law. 2. VAT Appeal No.49 of 2010 has been preferred by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) against order dated 8.10.2009 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal (VAT) No.467 of 2009, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether an appeal of the appellant can be rejected specially when a request for adjournment owing to illness of the counsel is made to the appellate authority or not? II. Whether the appeal can be dismissed by the appellate authority without affording proper and VAT Appeal No.49 of 2010 reasonable opportunity or not under the Punjab VAT Act, 2005? III. Whether appeal of the appellant can be dismissed especially when the part of the payment is deposited alongwith the memorandum of the appeal before the first appellate authority and willingness to deposit balance amount is expressed in memorandum of appeal furnished before the Hon’ble DETC or not? IV. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal can himself conclude that the appellant is not willing to deposit the balance amount or not? V. Whether the appeal of the appellant can be dismissed for the want of the non deposit of the balance amount especially when the order passed by the designated officer is patently illegal?” 2. The appellant has challenged the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal against order of the appellate authority, directing making of pre-deposit as per Section 62(5) of the Act. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal asked the counsel whether he was willing to deposit the amount as required under Section 62(5), but instead of depositing the amount, adjournment was sought which was not granted and accordingly, appeal was dismissed. 3. Even though the course adopted by the Tribunal was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, by way of indulgence, we direct that appeal of the appellant be heard on 2 VAT Appeal No.49 of 2010 merits by the appellate authority if the requisite amount under Section 62(5) of the Act is deposited within one month from today, subject to further payment of Rs.20,000/- towards costs, in each case. 4. The appellant may appear before the appellate authority for further proceedings on 23.12.2010. 5. The appeals are disposed of. 6. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 24, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3