VAT Appeal No. 78 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No. 78 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.5.2011 State of Punjab and another ....Appellants. Versus M/s Aggarwal Filling Station ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This order will dispose of VAT Appeal Nos. 78 of 2010 and 2 of 2011 as both the appeals involve common questions. 2. VAT Appeal No. 78 of 2010 has been filed by the revenue under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order dated 5.8.2010 passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab, claiming following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether the Respondent was entitled to its claim of ITC on the Diesel and Petrol which was not sold due to evaporation and no tax was paid to the State under the provisions of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005? II. Whether the Respondent was required to reverse ITC availed by him on Diesel and Petrol as provided under Section 13(9) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, VAT Appeal No. 78 of 2010 -2- 2005 because these goods were purchased for sale from within the State of Punjab but were not actually sold? III. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal allowing ITC on the purchase of Diesel and Petrol on which tax has not been paid due to evaporation is sustainable in law? IV. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal on the interpretation and by relying upon the definition of word “Sale Price” as defined in sub-clause 8 of section 2(zg) inserted on 28.3.2008 is sustainable in law as the case relates to the assessment year 2005- 06? V. Whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable in law in view of the orders passed by this Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 4583 of 2008 in which similar matter was involved?” 3. Learned counsel for the revenue states that the total amount involved in one case is Rs.27,468/- and in the second case there is no tax effect. 4. In view of smallness of amount being claimed, we decline to adjudicate on the questions claimed. The same are left open to be answered in an appropriate case. The appeals are dismissed. 5. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 10, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE