TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion rendered by the Himachal Pradesh Tax 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate Authority. However, the said appeal was rejected with the observations that the Assessing Authority had ensured and completed 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 hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess than two judges. (5) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable 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 (Anne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21,658.00 13. It is trite law that the admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon and though not conclusive is decisive of the matter, unless 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l submit the proceeding along with the connected records to such officer as may be authorised in that behalf by the State Government for conducting necessary enquiry in the matter. The said officer shall, before conducting the enquiry, serve a notice on the owner of the goods and give him an opportunity of being heard and if, after the enquiry, such officer finds that there has been an attempt to evade the tax due under this Act, he shall, by order, impose on the owner of the goods a penalty not exceeding twenty-five percentum of the value of the goods but which shall not be less than fifteen percentum of the value of the goods, and in case he finds otherwise, shall order the release of the goods." 20. We find no merit in the contention ....