Transit penalty upheld where documents did not prove transfer to the assessee and the explanation remained unsubstantiated.

Penalty under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was sustained because the accompanying documents did not evidence the transaction to the assessee, and the explanation of imported goods or job work remained unsubstantiated. The goods were moving from Tuglabad to Faridabad, but the documents showed import by another entity, with no document carried by the driver or employee proving a disclosed transfer to the assessee. The VAT D-3 form did not show disclosure of the movement, and the belated challan without the time of removal did not support the claim. The Tribunal's finding was not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was justified under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 when the goods were claimed to be imported goods accompanied by certain documents, and whether the Tribunal's finding that the transaction to the appellant was unsupported by documents was perverse.

Analysis: The goods were found moving from Tuglabad to Faridabad, and the available documents showed import by another entity, not a disclosed transfer to the appellant. The driver and the accompanying employee did not carry any document evidencing the transaction between the importer and the appellant. The VAT D-3 form did not establish that the movement to the appellant was disclosed to the department. The plea of job work was unsupported by any agreement, and the challan relied upon was produced belatedly and without the time of removal of goods. In these circumstances, the authorities were justified in treating the movement as unauthorised and in sustaining the penalty.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue; the penalty and the Tribunal's order were upheld.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for interference, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a goods-transit penalty matter, where the documents accompanying the consignment do not evidence the specific transaction under scrutiny and the assessee fails to substantiate its explanation, the finding of attempted tax evasion and the resulting penalty call for no interference.

---