https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163758 An appeal under section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 lies only on a substantial question of law, so concurrent factual findings generally will not justify interference. The Tribunal's finding that the goods were moved without mandatory documents under section 51(2), remained unexplained at Bathinda for about twenty days, and supported an inference of attempted tax evasion was based on evidence and disclosed no legal error. The penalty under section 51 was therefore upheld, and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Apr 2014 11:17:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163758 An appeal under section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 lies only on a substantial question of law, so concurrent factual findings generally will not justify interference. The Tribunal's finding that the goods were moved without mandatory documents under section 51(2), remained unexplained at Bathinda for about twenty days, and supported an inference of attempted tax evasion was based on evidence and disclosed no legal error. The penalty under section 51 was therefore upheld, and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163758