2017 (4) TMI 1114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal, Dharamshala (Camp at Shimla) on 29.12.2015, whereby it upheld the penalty levied against the petitioner under section 34 (7) whereas the penalty levied under section 34 (2-A) of the Act was ordered to be set aside. Certain facts may be noticed: 2. The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Act and Central Sales Tax, 1956. In pursuance to demand communicated and advance payments made by the petitioner for the purchase of vehicles, the manufacturer, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited on 19.8.2013 drew the following sales invoices in its favour: Sr.No. Invoice No. Invoice date Vehicle Serial number 1. 7014338534 19/8/2013 D2G88600 2. 7014338535 19/8/2013 D2G88602 3. 7014338536 19/8/2013 D2G88601 4. 701....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leted all the codal facilities. 6. The petitioner still being aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities below preferred an appeal before the H.P. Tax Tribunal, Dharamshala (camp at Shimla), which was partly allowed by deleting the penalty under section 34 (2-A) whereas the penalty under section 34 (7) was upheld. 7. It is against these orders passed by the statutory authorities that the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition on the ground that in absence of any finding to the effect that the petitioner has attempted to evade the tax; the impugned order cannot be sustained. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 9. At the outset one needs to note the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onable opportunity of being heard." 10. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid provisions that this Court would only interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities below in case it involves any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law. 11. However, this is not the fact situation obtaining in the instant case as the findings recorded by the authorities below are based on categorical admission of the representative of the petitioner. This would be clearly evident from the order passed by respondent No.3 on 30.8.2013 (Annexure P-2) wherein it was observed as under: "On 30.8.2013, present Shri Daljit Singh, Director M/s Shimla Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Registered office Chan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....less successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. 14. Even while filing an appeal before respondent No.3, the petitioner has only alleged that "respondent, i.e. respondent No.4 of its own recorded the admission of mistake of the appellant and compelled the appellant to pay penalty. The appellant succumbed to the pressure of the respondent and acted as directed by the authority to secure the release of vehicle to ensure timely delivery to the customer having advance booking." 15. Evidently, the aforesaid ground was clearly an afterthought as the petitioner took no steps to explain or withdraw the admission by adducing clinching material so as to out way the admission and, therefore, learned first appellate authority committed no irregularit....