JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the dealer under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Punjab Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 508 of 2013, claiming the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and 1st appellate authority deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of PSPCL v. State of Punjab? 2. A few facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant is a dealer having TIN No. 03402021410 and is engaged in import and trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals and metal scrap. It had filed its quarterly and annual returns for the assessment year 2006-07 after claiming the Input Tax Credit (ITC). There was no additional tax liability on the appellant. The appellant paid the tax of Rs. 86.41 lacs for the sales made after taking an ITC of the value added tax paid on the purchases. A notice was issued to the appellant by the Designated Officer. Again a notice was issued to the appellant on 24.2.2011 objecting to the claim of ITC. The assessment was framed for the assessment year 2006-07 vide order dated 5.5.2011 (Annexure A-1) by creating an additional demand of Rs. 10,69,23,103/-. The said demand was raised on account of rejection of ITC on the purchases of Rs. 2,67,32,68,722/-. As per Section 29(4) of the Act, the assessment for the year 2006-07 could be framed on or before 20.11.2010. The assessing authority issued a show cause notice for levying penalty under Sections 56 and 60 of the Act for charging interest under Section 32 of the Act. The appellant duly replied to the said show cause notice. Accordingly, respondent No.2 vide order dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure A-2) imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 21,38,46,206/- under Section 56 of the Act, Rs. 8,000/- under Section 60 of the Act and charged interest to the tune of Rs. 36,14,007/-. The appellant duly replied to the said show cause notice. Accordingly, respondent No.2 vide order dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure A-2) imposed penalties amounting to Rs. 21,38,46,206/- under Section 56 of the Act, Rs. 8,000/- under Section 60 of the Act and charged interest to the tune of Rs. 36,14,007/-. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 62(5) of the Act before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure A3) dismissed the appeal for non-deposit of 25% of the additional demand under Section 62(5) of the Act. Thereafter, the department filed a complaint in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib for registration of a case against the officials of the appellant. After investigation, the closure report dated 22.3.2015 (Annexure A-3/A) was filed. Against the order, Annexure A-3, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure A-4) upheld the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the issue involved in this appeal stands concluded by the decision of this Court in CWP No.26920 of 2013 (Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. The State of Punjab and others) decided on 23.12.2015 wherein after considering the relevant statutory provisions and the case law on the point, it was held as under:- 33. It is, thus, concluded that even when no express power has been conferred on the first appellate authority to pass an order of interim injunction/protection, in our opinion, by necessary implication and intendment in view of various pronouncements and legal proposition expounded above and in the interest of justice, it would essentially be held that the power to grant interim injunction/protection is embedded in Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act. Instead of rushing to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance can be remedied at the stage of first appellate authority. Instead of rushing to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance can be remedied at the stage of first appellate authority. As a sequel, it would follow that the provisions of Section 62(5) of the PVAT Act are directory in nature meaning thereby that the first appellate authority is empowered to partially or completely waive the condition of pre-deposit contained therein in the given facts and circumstances. It is not to be exercised in a routine way or as a matter of course in view of the special nature of taxation and revenue laws. Only when a strong prima facie case is made out will the first appellate authority consider whether to grant interim protection/injunction or not. Partial or complete waiver will be granted only in deserving and appropriate cases where the first appellate authority is satisfied that the entire purpose of the appeal will be frustrated or rendered nugatory by allowing the condition of pre-deposit to continue as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal before it. Therefore, the power to grant interim protection/injunction by the first appellate authority in appropriate cases in case of undue hardship is legal and valid. As a result, question (c) posed is answered accordingly. 34. In some of the petitions, the petitioners had filed an appeal without filing an application for interim injunction/protection which are still pending whereas in other petitions, the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for want of pre-deposit and further appeal has also been dismissed by the Tribunal on the same ground without touching the merits of the controversy. Where the appeals are pending without an application for interim injunction/protection before the first appellate authority, the petitioner may file an application for interim injunction/protection before the appeals are taken up for hearing by first appellate authority and in case such an application is filed, the same shall be decided by the said authority keeping in view all the legal principles enunciated hereinbefore. The other cases where the first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal for want of pre-deposit without touching merits of the controversy or further appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal, the said orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the first appellate authority where the petitioners may file an application for interim injunction/protection before the appeals are taken up for hearing by the first appellate authority who shall adjudicate the application for grant of interim injunction/protection to the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. All the cases stand disposed of in the above terms.” 7. In view of the above, the orders dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the judgment in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited's case (supra).