9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.J. AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. Devinder Lubana for the appellant JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the assesseeappellant under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated April 8, 2011 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal ) in Appeal (VAT) No. 22 of 2011, claiming the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders, annexures A1, A3 and A5, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether the learned lower court can ignore their findings in other similar cases? (iii) Whether the respondents are justified in not considering the submissions and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. The proceedings under section 51(6) of the Act were initiated and the assessee of the goods was asked to produce documents. The assessee produced the documents including bill No. 9 dated May 10, 2009 for ₹ 2,12,500 covered by GR No. 50. The matter was sent to the AETC, ICC, Shambu (import) for taking further action who vide order dated May 19, 2009 imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,06,250 upon the assessee. The assessee got the goods released on furnishing of the bank guarantee to the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated August 19, 2010 upheld the penalty levied under section 51(6) of the Act. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt in the given circumstances. A glance through G. R. No. 050 relating to invoice No. 9 available in the Department's file would reveal that columns concerning freight, loading/unloading and waiting charges, total advance and balance have been left blank though similar columns in G.R. No. 048 concerning invoice No. 10 relating to other goods have been filled in. The carbon copy and counterfoil of goods receipt No. 050 in respect of invoice No. 9 have also not been shown. In these circumstances, it can be reasonably inferred that G.R. No. 050 was got manipulated later on. The driver being cognizant of the fact that he did not have G.R. in question concealed invoice No. 9, which was produced by him, when the goods were being physica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
