Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.@mdashIn this appeal filed by the assessee u/s 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short ""the Act""), the
following substantial questions of law are claimed:-
(i) Whether the order of Ld. Tribunal upholding the penalty order on assumptions and presumptions is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the order of the Ld. Tribunal upholding the penalty order on the basis of an admission of the driver recorded under threat and pressure
is sustainable in law in view of the law laid down by this Hon''ble High Court in the case of M/s Krish Pack Industries v. State of Punjab. (2006)28
P.H.T. 27?
(iii) Whether penalty imposed u/s 51(7)(C) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 treating the transaction as inter State sale has wrongly been
upheld by the Ld. Tribunal, when according to the documents the transaction was an Intra State sale and the same has been accepted by the
Assessing Authority while framing the assessment?
(iv) Whether penalty imposed u/s 51(7)(C) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 treating the transaction as Inter State sale has wrongly been
upheld by the Ld. Tribunal when the purchaser has paid tax under Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 after taking delivery of goods?
(v) Whether it is lawful to impose penalty u/s 51(7)(C) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 by changing the nature of transaction from Inter
State to Inter State sale without making any inquiry from the alleged purchaser of outside the State?
(vi) Whether the penalty imposed u/s 51(7)(C) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 by the inquiry officer without bringing on record the name
and address of the alleged consignee of out side the State is sustainable in law?
(vii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly upheld the penalty order?
(viii) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is sustainable in law?
Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal are that the assessee is running the business of resale of iron goods at
Mandi Gobindgarh and purchased ERW pipes from M/s Luxmi Narain Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh and Angle from M/s Hanumant Iron
Store, Mandi Gobindgarh for a sum of Rs. 2,34,292/- and Rs. 3,98,657/- against the invoices dated 24.7.1998 (Annexures A-1 and A-2) by
paying VAT at the rate of 4%. The assessee sold the said ERW pipes and angels to M/s Madan Lal Bansal and Company, Bareta for a sum of
Rs. 6,35,595/- vide invoice dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure A-3) by charging VAT amounting to Rs. 24,446/-. The said goods were sent through
Truck No. HR-56B-1383 of Punjab Bihar Transport Company, Mandi Gobindgarh against GR No. 1282 dated 24.7.2008. On checking of the
said truck on 25.7.2008, the driver of the vehicle produced the invoice and GR but the truck was ordered to be taken at ICC Chullarkalan. The
checking officer asked the driver to appear in his office on 26.7.2008 at Bathinda where the statement of the driver was recorded to the effect that
the goods were being taken to Kohlapur in Maharashtra. The assessee approached the detaining officer for the release of the goods and also
produced account books to prove the genuineness of the documents vide letter dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure A-4). A notice u/s 51(7)(C) of the
Act dated 28.7.2008 was issued to the appellant. On 11.8.2008, the appellant appeared and filed reply to the said notice before the detaining
officer. A penalty of Rs. 3,17,797/- was imposed vide order dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure A-5). Against the said order, an appeal was preferred
before the appellate authority who vide order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure A-6) dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the
assessee filed further appeal before the Value Added Tax Tribunal (in short ""the Tribunal""). The Tribunal vide order dated 21.1.2011 (Annexure
A-9) upheld the penalty order and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
2. The only question that arises from the aforesaid questions is, whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 51(7)(C) of
the Act holding that there was an attempt to evade tax by the appellant-dealer.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no attempt to evade the tax as the goods were sold to M/s Madan Lal Bansal and
Company which was a firm within the State of Punjab at Bareta. It was further submitted that the relevant documents were available with the
driver. However, the driver had erroneously made a statement before the authorities to the effect that he was not carrying full documents. On the
basis of the judgment of this Court in Krish Pack Industries v. State of Punjab, (2006) 28 P.H.T. 27 (P&H) it was submitted that the penalty could
not have been imposed only on the basis of admission of the driver.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The Tribunal had noticed certain facts. It was recorded
that the route which was adopted by the appellant was not normal for movement of the goods from Mandi Gobindgarh to Bareta and on that basis,
the genuineness of the transaction was suspected. In addition, it was observed that the driver had stated that the goods were being transported to
Kohlapur in Maharashtra and not to Bareta. Moreover, the Director/employee of the appellant firm Mr. Surinder Gupta was accompanying the
vehicle and there was no declaration at the ICC Moonak. Still further, the purchase documents were dated 24.7.2008 which could be prepared
after the vehicle had been intercepted and were to be handed over by Mr. Surinder Gupta to the driver of the vehicle after crossing the Punjab
Barrier. The consignee M/s Madan Lal Bansal and Company had registration at Mandi Gobindgarh from where the consignment had originated
and no firm in the name of M/s Madan Lal Bansal and Company at Bareta existed. On cumulative effect of the aforesaid, it was held that the
document were not genuine and proper. The aforesaid finding of the Tribunal could not be demonstrated to be perverse or erroneous in any
manner. The appellant has failed to substantiate the transaction of sate in favour of M/s Madan Lal Bansal and Company at Bareta. In such a
situation, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Krish Pack Industries case (supra) is of no assistance as in that case
it was only on the basis of the statement of the driver therein that the penalty was sought to be imposed which is not the position here. 7. In view of
the above, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal being meritless is hereby
dismissed.
