One of the city’s oldest filling stations, Gurdial Singh and Sons, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) Petrol Pump, in Sector 22, will have to pay ₹ 4.31 crore in tax dues to the UT excise and taxation department after the VAT Tribunal dismissed its appeal.
The appellant collected tax from the public but did not deposit it with the government, said Manoj Kumar Parida, chairman VAT Tribunal and UT adviser, rejecting the appeal filed by the pump owners against an order of March 15, 2019, passed by the UT deputy excise and taxation commissioner (appeals).
The appellant failed to deposit 25% of the additional demand during the pendency of the appeal, Parida said.
According to the tribunal order, the appellant filed returns and annual statement as required under Section 26 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act 2005 (as applicable to UT Chandigarh), but data he submitted did not match with data received from IOC.
Thus, the excise and taxation officer-cum-designated officer (ETO) after issuing notice under section 29 of the Punjab VAT Act, slapped an additional demand of ₹4.31 crore in an October 18, 2018, order.
The appellant told the Tribunal that the assessment was done in an “ex parte matter” and the huge demand of ₹4.31 crore created wrongly. Further, the deputy excise and taxation commissioner (appeals) failed to consider the inability of the appellant to deposit 25% of the demand created by the ETO, he said.
{{/usCountry}}The appellant told the Tribunal that the assessment was done in an “ex parte matter” and the huge demand of ₹4.31 crore created wrongly. Further, the deputy excise and taxation commissioner (appeals) failed to consider the inability of the appellant to deposit 25% of the demand created by the ETO, he said.
{{/usCountry}}Even though he had no liquid assets the department had started proceedings for recovery of amount under the Revenue Act, the pump owner said, requesting that the appeal be taken up after the disposal of his (appellant’s) property by the excise and taxation department.
The Tribunal order read, “During the course of hearing, the appellant was asked to take some time to deposit 25% of the additional demand. But, he refused to take the time and submitted the case be decided after the disposal of the property of the appellant by the department under Revenue Act.”
Since the appellant refused to deposit 25% of the additional demand, the present appeal was being dismissed, the order read.