TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m-Joint Director (Investigation), Patiala (for short "Taxation Commissioner") and order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officercum- Incharge, Information Collection Centre, Ghanauli, Ropar (for short "Taxation Officer") whereby penalty to the tune of Rs.3,79,770/- had been imposed under Section 51 (7) (b) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short "Act, 2005") had been upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the appellant-Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of tractors and cranes at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh and is holding registration No.SOL III 5967/CST 5680. The appellant gets job work for manufacturing purposes done from M/s. Sahil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase order which too had been invoiced in the name of the appellant but was dispatched to M/s Sahil for fettling purposes i.e. for doing job work. The material was dispatched through TCI freight vide GR No.603877820. The driver declared transaction of the said goods also at ICC, Lalru in VAT form XXXVI. It was submitted that though both the consignments were dispatched through same vehicle but inadvertently, the driver unloaded all the material at the premises of M/s Sahil at Mohali though job work of fettling was to be done by the latter only on 117 pieces and not on 10 pieces of rough cast GR Iron that were dispatched through bill No.5172. The fettling work was done only on 117 pieces and M/s Sahil raised bill No.96 dated 16.09.2010 for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeared before respondent No.3 and presented its case. However, vide order dated 14.10.2010, the respondent No.3 imposed a penalty of Rs.3,79,770/- under Section 51(7) of the Act, 2005 on the ground that no proper and genuine documents were issued by the vendor of the appellant in favour of M/s Sahil and the goods consigned to the latter did not match with the goods mentioned in bills No.5172 and 5173 issued by the vendor. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order before the respondent No.2 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2013. The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Tax Tribunal which too was dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2016. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the Tax Tribunal, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ures A-3 and A-4 were issued. 117 pieces of rough cast iron crank cases were to be dispatched to M/s Sahil for job work though they were invoiced to the appellant whereas 10 pieces of crank cases were directly invoiced to the appellant. Undisputedly all these 127 pieces were unloaded in the premises of M/s Sahil and after doing fettling/job work on 117 pieces of crank cases, M/s Sahil had issued two invoices with regard to those 117 pieces as well as 10 pieces while claiming loading, unloading charges on the same as no job work was done. No transaction of sale had taken place in the area of Punjab. The driver of the vehicle had shown all the invoices at ICC, Ghanauli. Though in Form VAT-35 (transit slip), no declaration as to the transacti....