IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VATAP No.69 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.1.2011 State of Punjab & another. -----Appellants. Vs. M/s V.S. Traders. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 69(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the VAT Tribunal, Punjab in Appeal (VAT) No.116 of 2010 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the order passed by Ld. Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has misinterpreted the word detection as used in section 30(2) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005? (iii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has passed a non speaking order without distinguishing the words “Detection” and “Inspection”? (iv) Whether the period of limitation should have been calculated by the Ld. Tribunal from the date of finalization of inspection case in which the suppressed turnover had been detected and not from the date of inspection? VATAP No.69 of 2010 (v) Whether the assessment order was passed within period of limitation as provided in section 30(2) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act-2005? (vi) Whether the order of Ld. Tribunal is against the provisions of section 30 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005?” Learned counsel for the appellants fairly states that the matter is covered against the appellants by order of this Court dated 10.1.2011 in the case of the assessee in VAT Appeal No.67 of 2010 State of Punjab & another v. M/s V.S. Traders. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 13, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2