Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (the "VAT Act") as well as under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 68 of the VAT Act impugning the judgment and order dated July 28, 2008 passed by the Punjab Value Added Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh ("the Tribunal").

The assessee - company is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 ("1948 Act") which stands replaced by the Punjab VAT Act, 2005. The assessment year concerned in the present appeal is 2000-01. The assessee filed its quarterly return for the said year. The time-limit for completing the assessment is three years from the end of the year under section 11(3) of the 1948 Act. The said period expired on April 30, 2004 but no assessment was made up to that date. On October 5, 2006 notice for assessment was issued under section 11(3). The assessee took an objection that the notice was beyond the period of limitation. Thereafter the order granting extension of time was passed on August 17, 2007 by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala. Later, assessment was made and demand notice was issued.

The assessee preferred an appeal against the extension order dated August 17, 2007 passed under section 11(10) of the 1948 Act. The Tribunal held that since there was power of extension, the contention that the said power must be exercised within limitation could not be accepted. Reason given for extension of time was that the case of the assessee for the year 1999-2000 was pending with the Tribunal.

In the appeal the following substantial questions of law have been proposed :

"(i) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the orders July 25, 2007 (annexure A-9) and August 17, 2007 (annexure A-10) of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner (respondent No. 3) passed without issuing any notice and without granting any opportunity of being heard to the appellant ?

(ii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in not deciding the contention of the appellant that the orders dated July 25, 2007 (annexure A-9) and August 17, 2007 (annexure A-10) of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner (respondent No. 3) are void ab initio being violative of principles of natural justice as the same were passed ex parte without issuing any notice and without allowing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant ?

(iii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the orders dated July 25, 2007 (annexure A-9) and August 17, 2007 (annexure A-10) passed by Shri A. Venu Prasad even when he was appointed as Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab under notification dated August 24, 2007 ?

(iv) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in construing the notification dated August 24, 2007 (annexure A-15) in a manner so as to validate the quasi-judicial orders dated July 25, 2007 (annexure A-9) and August 17, 2007 (annexure A-10) passed by respondent No. 3 ?

(v) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in holding that respondent No. 3 validly extended the time even when the limitation to pass the orders of assessment had already expired ?

(vi) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in holding that respondent No. 3 had validly extended the time to pass the orders of assessment even when the assessment proceedings for the years 2000-01 to 2003-04 were initiated only after the expiry of the period of limitation ?

(vii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the orders dated July 25, 2007 (annexure A-9) and August 17, 2007 (annexure A-10) granting extension of time to pass the orders of assessment not for any supervening events but for default/failure of the assessing authority ?

(viii) Whether the learned Tribunal is justified in holding that the pendency of the case for the year 1999-2000 is a valid reason to enable respondent No. 3 to extend the time to pass t