2011 (8) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(a) Whether the findings of the learned Tribunal holding that non-reporting at the ICC and not making declaration in the prescribed form could not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of section 51(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with a view to do an attempt to evade tax are correct in the facts and circumstances of the case? (b) Whether it was mandatory on the part of the drivers of the vehicles to voluntarily stop at the ICC and give information of the inter-State transaction for getting form VATXXXVI generated and by not doing so, an attempt to evade the tax was made? (c) Whether penalty was correctly imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for making an attempt to evade the tax by n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exit from the State of Punjab. A notice was issued to the owner of the goods for appearance on October 15, 2008. On October 16, 2008, the goods were got released by the assessee against bank guarantee of Rs. 5,61,649. The detaining officer submitted the case to the ETO-cum-Officer-incharge, ICC Banur for initiating action under section 51(7)(c) of the Act. To afford an opportunity to the consignor, notice under section 51(7)(c) of the Act was issued for October 21, 2008 to prove the genuineness of the transaction and reasons for not reporting the transaction at the ICC as required under section 51(4) of the Act. After hearing the consignor, the ETO-cum-Officer-in-charge ICC, Banur vide order dated October 22, 2008 imposed a penalty of Rs. ....