Concurrent factual findings and no substantial question of law bar interference in bogus inter-State sales dispute

Concurrent factual findings that transactions were not genuine inter-State sales were upheld because the evidence showed no actual transport of goods and indicated use of invoices to obtain tax concession. In an appeal under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the Court held that such matters were purely factual, that the adequacy of evidence could not be re-examined, and that no substantial question of law arose merely because the appellant sought a different view of the same facts. The challenge to the levy of tax and penalty was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether any substantial question of law arose for interference with concurrent factual findings that the transactions were not genuine inter-State sales and that the levy of tax and penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was justified.

Analysis: The assessment authority and the appellate authorities recorded concurrent findings on the basis of evidence that the dealer attempted to project the transactions as inter-State movement without actual transport of goods, and that the invoices were used to obtain tax concession. In an appeal under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the Court held that the questions raised were purely factual and contrary to the findings already recorded. It further held that the adequacy of evidence cannot be re-examined in such proceedings, and that no substantive question of law arises merely because the appellant seeks a different view on the same facts.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the tax and penalty order was not sustainable.

---