Non-reporting at the Information Collection Centre justified penalty and confirmed the E-ICC reporting requirement for road transport.

Penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab VAT Act was sustained where the fact-finding authority inferred an attempt to evade tax from non-reporting at the relevant Information Collection Centre and movement of goods through an escape route; the HC found no perversity, misreading of evidence, or substantial question of law to justify interference. Rule 64-C of the Punjab VAT Rules was also held applicable to imported goods moved by road in an inter-State sale, and payment of Central Sales Tax did not displace the reporting requirement. The appeal accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was justified on the finding that the goods were transported through an escape route without reporting at the relevant Information Collection Centre. (ii) Whether Rule 64-C of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 applied to goods imported into Punjab by road in an interstate sale.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was justified on the finding that the goods were transported through an escape route without reporting at the relevant Information Collection Centre.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that the goods were a sale transaction moving from Baddi to Banur, that the vehicle did not report at the relevant Information Collection Centres on the route, and that the driver was intercepted on a link road after a substantial delay. On those facts, it inferred an attempt to evade Punjab tax. The High Court found no illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence in that factual conclusion and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 64-C of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 applied to goods imported into Punjab by road in an interstate sale.

Analysis: The Tribunal interpreted Rule 64-C to require generation of E-ICC before taking delivery of imported goods or before their transition by road, whichever was earlier. It held that the rule was applicable even where the goods entered Punjab by road and that mere payment of Central Sales Tax did not negate the reporting requirement. The High Court accepted this reasoning and found no basis to interfere.

Conclusion: Rule 64-C of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was held applicable to the transaction, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The factual findings sustaining the evasion inference and the statutory application of the E-ICC requirement were left undisturbed, and the appeal failed for want of any substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a fiscal detention-and-penalty matter, where the fact-finding authority reasonably infers an attempt to evade tax from non-reporting at the prescribed collection centre and use of an escape route, the High Court will not interfere absent perversity or legal error, and the mandatory reporting provision will be applied according to its text and coverage.

---