VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.5.2011 State of Punjab and another ... Appellants Versus M/s Novelty Associates Pvt. Limited ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (‘the Act’) for setting aside order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab in Appeal No.306 of 2010, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “i) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order of the learned VAT Tribunal is sustainable so as to allow the respondents to maintain their appeal without paying the balance amount of the pre-deposit so as to complete the 25% of the amount of tax and penalty impugned as additional demand raised against them in the appeal? ii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 whether the undisputed amount of tax already deposited alongwith the return could be considered so as to calculate the 25% of the pre-deposit of the impugned demand against which the appeal under section 62(5) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 was being filed? iii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the appeal of the respondents under section 62 (1) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was maintainable without payment of any amount as the pre-deposit beyond the amount of Rs.31,35,240/- (Rupees thirty one lacs, thirty five thousand, two hundred and forty only) as already deposited by them?” 2. The assessee has preferred an appeal which is pending before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the deposit already made by the assessee being more than 25% of the total demand raised, the appeal was liable to be considered on merits as bar under section 62(5) of theAct did not apply. 3. Only ground which has been raised on behalf of the appellants is that the deposit was made before the demand was raised and thus, the appeal could not be heard on merits. 4. There is no merit in the submission. There is no requirement under section 62(5) to deposit 25% after the demand was raised. The deposit already made can certainly be taken into account as held by the Tribunal following order of this Court in M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (1) Limited v. State of Punjab, CWP No.18650 of 2009 decided on 29.7.2010. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute applicability of judgment of this Court in M/s Ahluwalia Contracts. 2 VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 6. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 19, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3 VAT Appeal No.40 of 2011 4