Where order imposing penalty was remanded, original order did subsist; mere pendency of remand case would not entitle department to retain amount deposited as penalty

CST & VAT : Where order imposing penalty was remanded, original order did subsist; mere pendency of remand case would not entitle department to retain amount deposited as penalty
■■■
[2014] 50 taxmann.com 175 (Punjab & Haryana)
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Surya Synthetics
v.
State of Punjab*
RAJIVE BHALLA AND DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, JJ.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23146 OF 2013
OCTOBER  25, 2013
Section 12, read with section 14B, of the General Sales Tax Act, 1958 - Refund - Assistant Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 3,52,000 on petitioner - Petitioner filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner after depositing Rs. 88,000 towards penalty - Deputy Commissioner found that order of Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty was non-speaking and ex-parte and therefore, he remanded case - Whether in absence of mention of words by Deputy Commissioner that order of Assistant Commissioner had been set aside or that appeal was allowed, would not raise an inference that original order of Assistant Commissioner still subsisted - Held, yes - Whether since impugned order of Deputy Commissioner left no ambiguity that orders of Assistant Commissioner levying penalty was set aside and matter was remanded to pass fresh orders, pendency of remanded case, did not entitle department to retain amount of penalty deposited by petitioner - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee]