Contemporaneous documents versus belated defence justified penalty for disputed goods detention and no substantial question of law arose

Penalty under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act was sustained where the driver's statement, the contemporaneous documents at the checking point, and the assessee's later explanation were inconsistent. The assessee failed to produce the relevant import and transfer documents before the penalising authority, and a GR produced later supported the finding that the defence was an afterthought. The claimed sale-in-transit theory was not supported by endorsement on the GR or by the movement documents for the asserted earlier transaction, so the detention and penalty were justified and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 31(8) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was justified on the facts, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the detention of goods accompanied by disputed documents.

Analysis: The goods were detained because the driver's statement that the goods had been loaded from ICD, Dadri conflicted with the documentary trail produced at the checking point. The appellant did not produce the earlier import and transfer documents before the penalising authority, and the explanation advanced before appellate forums was inconsistent with the contemporaneous record. The later-produced GR for the earlier transaction supported the conclusion that the defence was an afterthought. The claimed theory of sale in transit was also not borne out by the documents, as there was no endorsement on the GR and the vehicle was not shown to be carrying the appropriate movement documents for the asserted earlier transaction. On these facts, the authorities were justified in treating the conduct as attracting penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty and consequential tax demand were upheld, and no substantial question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the factual foundation for interference with the penalty order was not made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contemporaneous documents, the driver's statement, and the later explanation are inconsistent and the assessee fails to produce supporting material at the relevant stage, the authority may sustain penalty for attempted evasion and no substantial question of law arises merely on a belated factual defence.

---