2020 (2) TMI 1383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... claiming following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below have rightly invoked the provisions of Section 51 of the PVAT Act, 2005 and imposed penalty when the goods were voluntarily reported at ICC and therefore cannot remain unaccounted in the books of accounts? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty U/s 51(7) when the goods in question were voluntarily reported on its entry into the State of Punjab at ICC and were also reported at Himachal Pradesh tax barrier while making exist from Himachal Pradesh ruling out any possibility of keeping the transactions out of books? (c)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ler') in favour of M/s Anjali Kitchen Wares Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai; GR No. 25453 dated 2.5.2012 showing destination from Baddi to Zirakpur and declaration in Form VAT XXVI-A of Himachal Pradesh showing consignee as M/s Anjali Kitchen Wares Pvt. Ltd., Dera Bassi. The driver stated that the goods i.e. pressure cookers were to be unloaded at Dera Bassi. No document issued by M/s Anjali Kitchen Wares Pvt. Ltd. in favour of dealer of Dera Bassi was produced either at the time of checking or during penalty proceedings. Penalty of Rs. 2,40,124/- was imposed under Section 51(7)(b) read with Section 51(12) of the Act. Aggrieved of the order, appeal was filed which was dismissed on 30.1.2013. Further appeal filed before the Tribunal met with the same ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e applicable under this Act." There is no dispute on the fact that there was no document accompanying the goods whereby it was evident that the appellant had made sales to purchaser in Punjab. The stand taken that there was an advance purchase order does not enhance the case of the appellant, the purchase order was not accompanying the goods. Moreover, in case the position had been so, the invoice issued by the seller would have at least mentioned that the goods to be delivered to the purchaser at Dera Bassi whereas the invoice was issued in the name of the appellant at Mumbai. The destination as per the GR was different than stated in the invoice. Even in the declaration filed at Himachal barrier, the name of the consignee given was as ....