Ingemine transport documents and concurrent findings of tax evasion justified penalty; no substantial question of law arose.

Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the transport documents were found to be ingenuine and supported a concurrent factual finding of attempted tax evasion. The court held that the dealer had moved goods on documents already rejected or returned, with the same quantity reflected despite differing rates and amounts, and found no illegality or perversity in the authorities' conclusions. As the challenge sought only reappraisal of evidence, no substantial question of law arose, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was justified on the facts of the case and whether any substantial question of law arose.

Analysis: The documents accompanying the goods were found to be ingenuine by the authorities below. The record showed that the same goods were earlier covered by one invoice marked as rejected and returned, and the later invoice used for onward movement also carried a similar endorsement, while the quantity remained the same though the rates and amounts differed. The concurrent factual finding was that the dealer had transported goods with documents already rejected and had thus attempted to evade tax. The Court found no illegality or perversity in these concurrent findings and declined to reappraise the evidence.

Conclusion: The penalty was justified and no substantial question of law arose; the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of attempted tax evasion based on ingenuine transport documents were upheld, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact that goods were transported on ingenuine documents to evade tax will not be disturbed in appeal absent perversity, and no substantial question of law arises from a mere request for reappraisal of evidence.

---