Penalty on goods carried for approval not restored where factual findings showed no tax evasion and no substantial question of law arose.

The Tribunal's finding that the jewellery was carried only for approval and not for sale, with no attempt to evade tax, was based on appreciation of evidence. The HC treated that finding as factual and held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's challenge to the penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The cited Supreme Court decision was found distinguishable. The penalty was not restored, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for alleged violation of the transportation and reporting requirements under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was liable to be set aside, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual finding that the goods were being carried for approval and not for sale.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding, after appreciating the facts and circumstances, that there was no attempt to evade tax and that the jewellery was being carried only for approval. The High Court treated this as a finding based on appreciation of evidence. In such a situation, the challenge raised by the Revenue did not disclose any substantial question of law. The attempt to rely on the cited Supreme Court decision was also found to be distinguishable.

Conclusion: The penalty was not restored, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---