Deliberate intention to evade tax is required for penalty; invoice discrepancies alone do not justify interference.

Penalty for alleged tax evasion requires material showing a deliberate intention to evade tax, and a mere discrepancy in invoice particulars is insufficient. On the facts recorded, the goods were produced at the information collection centre and entered in the record, while the invoice discrepancy as to handwriting or truck details did not establish evasion because the goods moved in the same truck with the same GR disclosed in the invoice. The Tribunal's factual finding on absence of evasion was therefore not shown to be legally infirm, and no substantial question of law arose from the appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order in the appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. (ii) Whether penalty under Section 14B(7)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was justified on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether any substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order in the appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The appeal was required to disclose a real substantial question of law. The questions framed by the appellant did not address the core finding of alleged tax evasion and merely complained that the Tribunal had not discussed the arguments in detail. The record showed that the Tribunal had examined the factual and legal material and had not ignored any material issue warranting interference.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 14B(7)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was justified on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 14B(7)(ii) could be imposed only where there was an intention to evade tax. The goods were produced at the information collection centre and were entered in the record, and the discrepancy in the invoice concerning the handwriting or truck details did not by itself establish evasion. On the facts found, the goods travelled in the same truck and with the same GR disclosed in the invoice, so the inference of deliberate evasion was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified, and the Tribunal's order setting it aside was in substance.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were liable to fail because the Tribunal's view on absence of tax evasion and consequent penalty interference disclosed no legal or factual infirmity.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for alleged tax evasion cannot be sustained unless the material establishes a deliberate intention to evade tax, and a mere discrepancy in invoice particulars without such intention does not justify appellate interference with the Tribunal's factual finding.

---