Penalty for intercepted goods upheld where documents were found not genuine and transaction indicated tax evasion

Penalty for interception of goods was sustained because the accompanying documents did not genuinely match the movement and destination of the goods, and the invoice did not support the consignee details later relied on by the assessee. The claimed additional place of business was registered much later, and the agreement relied upon did not clearly prove movement for demonstration or trial. On these facts, the authorities and Tribunal treated the transaction as an attempt to evade tax under the penalty provision, and their concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or erroneous, so no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for interception of goods was sustainable on the ground that the documents accompanying the goods were not genuine and the transaction indicated an attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: The goods were found to be accompanied by documents showing a destination different from the actual place connected with the consignee, while the invoice did not disclose the consignee whose name was later relied upon by the assessee. The record also showed that the additional place of business was incorporated much later and the agreement relied upon did not clearly establish the claimed movement of goods for demonstration or trial. On these facts, the authorities and the Tribunal concluded that the documents were not genuine and that the transaction was liable to be treated as an attempt to evade tax under the relevant penalty provision. Those concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or erroneous.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

---