9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1027X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctly imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for making an attempt to evade the tax by not giving the information of the transaction even though the goods were sent for loading in the railway wagon in the State of Punjab? Whether the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by this honourable High Court that penalty is to be imposed for making an attempt to evade the tax especially when the documents were recovered from the drivers after getting the vehicles stopped when they failed to give information of the transaction at the ICC? Held that:- The Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal filed by the assessee had recorded a finding that the driver of the vehicle was in possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do an attempt to evade tax are correct in the facts and circumstances of the case? (b) Whether it was mandatory on the part of the drivers of the vehicles to voluntarily stop at the ICC and give information of the inter-State transaction for getting form VATXXXVI generated and by not doing so, an attempt to evade the tax was made? (c) Whether penalty was correctly imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for making an attempt to evade the tax by not giving the information of the transaction even though the goods were sent for loading in the railway wagon in the State of Punjab? (d) Whether the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by this honourable High Court that penalty is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case to the ETO-cum-Officer-incharge, ICC Banur for initiating action under section 51(7)(c) of the Act. To afford an opportunity to the consignor, notice under section 51(7)(c) of the Act was issued for October 21, 2008 to prove the genuineness of the transaction and reasons for not reporting the transaction at the ICC as required under section 51(4) of the Act. After hearing the consignor, the ETO-cum-Officer-in-charge ICC, Banur vide order dated October 22, 2008 imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,61,649 under section 51(7)(c) of the Act by observing that an attempt was made to evade tax. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Enforcement), Patiala Division, Patiala who vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ICC, Banur and not making declaration in the prescribed form could not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of section 51(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act with a view to do an attempt to evade tax. As such, this appeal is accepted. Orders of the authorities below are set aside. In view of the aforesaid findings, which could not be shown to be perverse in any manner by the learned counsel for the appellants, no substantial question of law, as claimed, arises in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on the merits, no order is required to be passed in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the same is disposed of as such. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
