2014 (7) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), order dated 22.2.2013 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent No.2, claiming the following substantial questions of law:-              (i) Whether any order of penalty can be passed on the presumption that there was an attempt to evade tax?            (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when proper and genuine documents have been produced, an order of penalty under Section 51 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, could be passed?       &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mukesh Gupta has appeared today in response to the notice issued by the  undersigned. The goods were detained on the ground that these were not covered by proper and genuine documents as these were loaded from Zirakpur whereas the bill was issued from Chandigarh. He has been confronted with these facts of the case. As per record he has produced invoice No. 15105 dated 24.07.2012 issued by M/s Surendra Steel Sales Zirakpur. It is not denied by the owner of the goods that this bill was issued after the detention of the goods. The only explanation submitted on 27.07.2012 was that the accountant has inadvertently issued invoice of Chandigarh Branch. No other explanation in this regard has been put forth by the owner of the goods. It is a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d of Patiala but on the basis of G.R. it came to notice that goods are going from Zirakpur not Chandigarh. This transaction was detected in time. Had it pass the ICC, the Zirakpur firm could easily say that it was not the bill of his firms. So attempt to evade tax is there. After hearing both the parties it is clear that the use stationary of Chandigarh office was intentional with a view to evade the tax. So the appeal is dismissed." 7. The Tribunal has upheld the penalty with the following observations:-               "The thrust of the arguments of Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate is that M/s Surendra Steel Sales, Chandigarh is having its branch office at Zirakpur. After exa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;  "The goods were detained on the ground that these were not covered by proper and genuine documents as these were loaded from Zirakpur whereas the bill was issued from Chandigarh. He has been confronted with these facts of the case. As per record he has produced invoice No. 15105 dated 24.07.2012 issued by M/s Surendra Steel Sales Zirakpur. It is not denied by the owner of the goods that this bill was issued after the detention of the goods. The only explanation submitted on 27.07.2012 was that the accountant has inadvertently issued invoice of Chandigarh Branch. No other explanation in this regard has been put forth by the owner of the goods. It is an admitted fact that the goods were loaded from Zirakpur but no bill was issued by ....