VAT Appeal No. 20 of 2011(O&M) -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No. 20 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2011 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Jaswinder Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This Appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order dated 15.3.2010 Annexure A-4 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 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? iii) Whether the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Authority under the orders of the First Appellate Authority who has remanded the case could be decided on the ground of limitation in view of Section 11C of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, when the original assessment order has already been set aside when the case was remanded? iv) Whether the Tribunal has wrongly set aside the original VAT Appeal No. 20 of 2011(O&M) -2- *** assessment order holding the same as barred by limitation which was passed in view of orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.15011 of 1997 who has allowed to frame the assessment for the entire State at its Head Office at Patiala for which board had consented? v) Whether the original assessment order had lost its entity as the same was set aside in appeal by the First Appellate Authority? vi) Whether the Tribunal has erred in accepting the appeal against re-assessment order and order of First Appellate Authority on the short ground that originally assessment was framed on 28.3.2011 after the expiry of period of limitation when the said order already stood set aside by the First Appellate Authority? 2. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that matter is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court in Shreyans Industries Limited Vs. State of Punjab and others (2008) 18 VAT and Service Tax Cases 493 (P&H) In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 29,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge