IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VAT Appeal No.51 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.8.2010 M/s Beri Jewellers. -----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. K.L. Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. --- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal (VAT) No.513 of 2009, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has passed a speaking order on the grounds raised before it? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the request of appellant for adjournment and deciding the case on merits? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of Designated Officer even VAT Appeal No.51 of 2010 though the Department has failed to establish that there was any suppression of sales? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the provisional assessment order which includes penalty even though there is no such power under Section 30 to pass an order of penalty? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty even though no notice under Section 56 was issued to the appellant as per Rule 50 of the Punjab VAT Rules? 2. On inspection of business premises of the assessee, notice was issued to the assessee but the assessee failed to produce the books of account or even to appear. The designated officer determined the tax due on account of suppressed sales and also imposed penalty which was upheld in appeal. On further appeal to the Tribunal, counsel for the assessee did not appear and sought adjournment which was declined. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Even though the order passed in the facts and circumstance, is a discretionary order of the Tribunal, by way of indulgence, we grant one opportunity to the appellant to appear on the date which is now being fixed subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- towards costs. 2 VAT Appeal No.51 of 2010 5. The appellant may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 24.12.2010. 6. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 24, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3