Penalty for attempted tax evasion sustained on cumulative suspicious circumstances and defective documents; finding not perverse.

Penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was sustained where the Tribunal's finding of attempted tax evasion rested on the cumulative effect of suspicious circumstances and documentary infirmities, including the vehicle's unusual route, the driver's statement, the presence of the assessee's representative, non-production of declaration at the barrier, and doubts about the purchase and sale documents. The High Court held that the assessee failed to prove a genuine intra-State sale to the alleged consignee and that the factual finding was not shown to be perverse. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was justified on the facts, and whether the Tribunal's finding of an attempt to evade tax suffered from perversity.

Analysis: The assessee's case was examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances, including the unusual route taken by the vehicle, the driver's statement that the goods were going to Maharashtra, the presence of the assessee's representative with the vehicle, the absence of declaration at the barrier, and the doubt cast on the genuineness of the purchase and sale documents. The finding of the Tribunal was based on the cumulative effect of these circumstances and not merely on the driver's statement. The assessee failed to establish that the consignment was a genuine intra-State sale to the alleged consignee at Bareta, and the factual finding was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 51(7)(c) was rightly sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for attempted tax evasion can be upheld where the finding rests on the cumulative effect of suspicious circumstances and documentary infirmities, and not solely on a retracted or isolated statement.

---