TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated November 2, 2005 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cumDesignated Officer, Ward No. 6, Khanna, imposing tax and inflicting penalty on the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,57,795 and also upheld the assessment order dated November 2, 2005. Facts in brief may first be noticed. The appellant is a firm which is engaged in the business of resale of timber and is running a sheller. It filed the return for the quarter ending June 30, 2005. The Designated Officer with a view to ascertain the correctness of return filed audited the same as per the provisions of section 28(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Designated Officer issued a notice under section 28(2) of the Act for production of account books along with other related docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not taken for issuing fake invoices with the intention to evade tax. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Designated Officer, Ward No. 6, Khanna vide order dated November 2, 2005 after following due process framed assessment assessing the tax liability and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,57,795 under sections 56 and 57 of the Act. The order of the Designated Officer was challenged in an appeal filed under section 62 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated April 19, 2006. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the appellant filed an appeal under section 63 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal at the outset asked the counsel for the appellant to explain as to how the goods passed through Lakhanpur Border of Jammu and Kashm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 56 is upheld. Penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 57 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act does not appear to have been levied with proper application of mind and is, therefore, set aside." We have heard Shri K. L. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant who has claimed that numerous questions of law would arise for our determination. He has referred to four questions framed by him in para 5 which read as under: "(i) Whether there are any basis for the finding given by the Tribunal that appellant-dealer has connivanced with the purchasing dealer of Jammu and Kashmir State? Whether the finding as such are on surmises and conjectures and therefore not sustainable in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether there are any basis to give a finding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of section 68(2) of the Act would arise for our determination. A glance at the first question of law sought to be raised would highlight that the question is based on presumptions which are contrary to the findings of fact recorded. There is ample evidence on record to show that the appellant made an unsuccessful attempt at ICC, Madhopur to generate ST XXXVI form when he wen to data entry operators window along with bill Nos. 158 to 160 in respect of which claim has been made for granting concession in tax at two per cent. Similar is the position with regard to question No. (ii) which proceeds contrary to the finding that the appellant was not able to show to the authorities at ICC, Madhopur that those three bills were in respect of trucks ....