Tax evasion penalty set aside where invoice and delivery slip matched on proper appreciation of the record.

Penalty for attempted tax evasion under the Punjab VAT Act could not be sustained where the Tribunal found no material discrepancy between the delivery slip and invoice after accounting for the Central Excise component. The Tribunal also rejected the allegation of a bribe attempt as unnatural and unsupported by the record. The HC found no perversity or legal error in those factual findings and held that no substantial question of law arose for interference. The departmental appeal was therefore rejected and the penalty set aside on the basis that the respondent-dealer had not attempted to evade tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent-dealer had attempted to evade tax so as to attract penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that after taking the Central Excise component into account, the rates in the delivery slip and the invoice were identical, and therefore there was no discrepancy in the transaction documents. It also rejected the departmental version regarding an alleged bribe attempt, holding that the story was unnatural and unsupported by the material on record. The High Court found no perversity or error in these findings and held that no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Conclusion: The respondent had not attempted to evade tax and the penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The departmental appeal was rejected as the factual findings of the Tribunal were affirmed and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for attempted tax evasion cannot be sustained where the documents, on proper appreciation, disclose no material discrepancy and the finding of no evasion is neither perverse nor erroneous.

---