https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165303 The Tribunal's finding that the jewellery was carried only for approval and not for sale, with no attempt to evade tax, was based on appreciation of evidence. The HC treated that finding as factual and held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's challenge to the penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The cited Supreme Court decision was found distinguishable. The penalty was not restored, and the Revenue's appeal failed. en-us Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:09:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165303 The Tribunal's finding that the jewellery was carried only for approval and not for sale, with no attempt to evade tax, was based on appreciation of evidence. The HC treated that finding as factual and held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue's challenge to the penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The cited Supreme Court decision was found distinguishable. The penalty was not restored, and the Revenue's appeal failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165303