2012 (7) TMI 864

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0. The documents filed along with the application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of accordingly. VATAP No. 72 of 2012 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated May 31, 2010 (annexure A5) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the order of the Tribunal accepting the appeal on the ground of non-issuing of a notice to consignee under section 14B(7)(iii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 without granting an opportunity to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quirements under the statute. 3. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. On May 5, 2001 during the course of checking, vehicle No. HR-37-1597 carrying pulses and vegetables was intercepted at village Joggewala by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mobile Wing, Chandigarh. On demand, the driver of the vehicle produced three GRs dated May 4, 2001 of M/s. Chaudhary Road Carrier Delhi along with various bills. When the driver of the said vehicle failed to produce form ST-XXIV-A issued by any ICC of Punjab State which was required while entering in the State of Punjab with goods loaded from Delhi, the checking officer made enquiry from the driver who stated that he had come through an escape route and had bypassed ICC on th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he order dated September 22, 2009 (annexure A3), the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated May 31, 2010 (annexure A5) allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the Tribunal had held that the penalty was imposed on the transport carrier and not on the consignee. Further, no notice was served upon the respondent whereas a prior notice was required to be served upon it. According to the learned counsel, in such circumstances, the appropriate course for the Tribunal was to remand the matter to the assessing authority to proceed in accordance with law. The Tribunal having failed to do so,....