2012 (8) TMI 878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned Tribunal upholding the penalty order on the basis of an admission of the driver recorded under threat and pressure is sustainable in law in view of the law laid down by this honourable High Court in the case of Krish Pack Industries v. State of Punjab reported as [2006] 28 PHT 27? (iii) Whether the penalty imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 treating the transaction as interState sale has wrongly been upheld by the learned Tribunal, when according to the documents the transaction was an intra-State sale and the same has been accepted by the Assessing Authority while framing the assessment? (iv) Whether the penalty imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005, treat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Rs. 24,446. The said goods were sent through Truck No. HR-56B-1383 of Punjab Bihar Transport Company, Mandi Gobindgarh against GR No. 1282 dated July 24, 2008. On checking of the said truck on July 25, 2008, the driver of the vehicle produced the invoice and GR but the truck was ordered to be taken at ICC Chullarkalan. The checking officer asked the driver to appear in his office on July 26, 2008 at Bathinda where the statement of the driver was recorded to the effect that the goods were being taken to Kohlapur in Maharashtra. The assessee approached the detaining officer for the release of the goods and also produced account books to prove the genuineness of the documents vide letter dated July 28, 2008 (annexure A4). A notice under sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the penalty could not have been imposed only on the basis of admission of the driver. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The Tribunal had noticed certain facts. It was recorded that the route which was adopted by the appellant was not normal for movement of the goods from Mandi Gobindgarh to Bareta and on that basis, the genuineness of the transaction was suspected. In addition, it was observed that the driver had stated that the goods were being transported to Kohlapur in Maharashtra and not to Bareta. Moreover, the Director/ employee of the appellant-firm Mr. Surinder Gupta was accompanying the vehicle and there was no declaration at the ICC, Moonak. Still further, the purcha....