2023 (11) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in brief is that the appellant is a dealer registered under the Punjab VAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and deals in manufacturing and sale of CFL and Colour television for Philips and Weston respectively. The appellant used to receive the raw material from head office at Noida. In the normal course of its business, the Head Office at Noida sold the goods to M/s Philips India Ltd., but same were sent to the appellant's premises at Mohali for job work, which was to be done by the appellant for M/s Philips India Ltd., Pune. The goods were covered with the following documents:- (i) Invoice No. 000157 dated 19.06.2009 issued by M/s Dixon Technologies India (P) Ltd. in favour of M/s Philips India Ltd., Pune delivery at M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and due to clerical mistake, as the Computer operator mistakenly chose the Name of Dehradun concern instead of Mohali Branch. It was pleaded before the Officer that same is liable to be ignored, as it was a human error. Moreover, the Dehradun branch does not deal with these goods. So, there is no reason to send the goods to Dehradun branch. Further, to substantiate his claim, the appellant submitted the registration certificate of M/s Dixon Technologies (India) P. Ltd., Dehradun issued by the Taxation Department, Dehradun. Annexure A-4. In any case the driver would not submit the wrong documents voluntarily. The production of documents showed the bonafide of the assessee. The detaining officer referred the case to enquiry officer for act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on order 07.10.2011 (A-8) on the ground that plea of the appellant that the said mistake has occurred due to clerical error cannot be accepted, as the appellant was carrying the goods without any Invoice relating to delivery of goods to M/s Dixon Technologies (India) P. Ltd. Hence the present appeal. While issuing notice of motion on 18.04.2012, this Court found the following substantial question of law arose for determination of this Court:- "1. Whether facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty under Section 51(7)(b) on account of deficiency in the documents with regard to correct name and address of consignee, despite ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....documents, it was mentioned as Lucknow. The appellant had submitted that the Code mentioned in the computer for Lucknow was 'LUC' whereas for Ludhiana it was 'LUD'. It was by mistake that 'LUC' was pressed and printed instead of 'LUD' and therefore inadvertent mistake had occurred. The appellant had produced the following documents before the ETO on duty:- "1. Invoice No. 10137174 dated 13.11.2009 for Rs. 1255154 issued by M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Limited Greater Noida in favour of M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana. 2. Invoice No. 10137172 dated 13.11.2009 for Rs. 208780 issued by M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Limited greater Noida in favour of M/s L.G. Electronics I....