IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VATAP No.67 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.1.2011 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. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 68(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.115 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.67 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?” 2. The respondent is a taxable person under the provisions of the Act. It manufactures and markets bricks. The Excise and Taxation Officer visited the premises of the respondent on 6.7.2007 and conducted inspection. After verification, provisional order dated 22.4.2008 was passed, holding that the respondent had concealed tax and was liable to pay tax on suppressed turnover with penalty. Appeal against the said order was dismissed but on further appeal, the Tribunal held the order to be without jurisdiction having been passed beyond the prescribed limitation of six months from the date of inspection. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Section 30(2) is as under:- “2) That provisional assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made within a period of six months from the date of detection.” 5. It is clear from Section 30(2) of the Act that the provisional assessment can be made only within six months from the detection of suppressed turnover while in the present case, the said period was over when the impugned order was passed. Moreover, setting aside of the order does not prejudice the revenue as liability can still be finally assessed after return has 2 VATAP No.67 of 2010 been filed by framing regular assessment, taking into account material which may be available against the assessee. 6. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 10, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3