IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VAT Appeal No.48 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.8.2010 M/s Prime Industries Limited. -----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. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, “the VAT Act”) against order dated 25.01.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal (VAT) No.610 of 2009, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that no appeal was maintainable against the order of the Commissioner exercising the powers of revision, whereby he has rejected the Preliminary Objections of the assessee with regard to jurisdictional aspect? 2. The assessee is a dealer under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, “the 1948 Act”). The Assessing Authority finalised the assessment for the VAT Appeal No.48 of 2010 assessment year 2002-03, against which proceedings for suo motu revision were initiated. The appellant raised preliminary objection against initiation of said proceedings which was rejected and the revisional authority decided to proceed on merits. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 20 of the 1948 Act read with Section 65 of the VAT Act. 3. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not affected at that stage, as final order had not yet been passed by the revisional authority. Liberty was given to the appellant to seek its remedy as and when final order was passed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Only contention which has been put forward is that every order of the revisional authority was appealable and the Tribunal was not justified in holding that appeal was not maintainable. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. Since the Tribunal has given liberty to the appellant to file appeal against the final order, question raised cannot be held to be substantial question of law. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 24, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2