9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 28-7-2016 - Mr. Rajesh Bindal and Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Addl. A.G., Punjab JUDGMENT This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing VAT Appeal Nos. 19 and 20 of 2016. The facts have been taken from VAT Appeal No.19 of 2016. In this appeal, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the penalizing officer under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act has the jurisdiction to determine the issues on which the matter was remanded by the Tribunal? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could have remanded the matter back to the penalizing officer to answer the questions whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... still penalty of ₹ 38,77,337/- was levied on the appellant opining that the documents were not genuine and proper. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner(Appeals) -cum-Joint Director(investigation), Patiala. In further appeal, the VAT Tribunal Punjab set-aside the orders passed by the authorities below and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Shamboo (Export) for fresh decision after answering the issues as noticed in the order passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. and another vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tax had not been charged. The proposition of law that nature of transaction cannot be gone into by the Officer at the check post was not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. In response, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per contract, the goods were being transferred from the State of Uttrakhand to Punjab for right to use. It was not a sale. This was so mentioned in the invoice. The amount was shown only for the purpose of octroi and insurance, hence, no tax was chargeable. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that the nature of transaction cannot be gone into by the Officer at the check post. It is the job of the regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
