9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 documents and law produced by the appellant-firm? (iv) Whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside being arbitrary and against law? (v) Whether the act of the respondents is discriminatory in the eyes of law? (vi) Whether the appellant-owner can be punished for the mistake of the driver of the transport firm? (vii) Whether the appellant-firm registered at Delhi is liable to be taxed under the Punjab VATAct? (viii) Whether the appellant-firm is l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Tribunal by depositing statutory payment of Rs. 26,563. The Tribunal vide order dated January 17, 2011 upheld the penalty and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The challenge in this appeal filed by the assessee is to an order of the Tribunal upholding the levy of penalty by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the first appellate authority under section 51(7) of the Act. The Tribunal on appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces, 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 physically verified. The driver had stated before the detaining officer that in pursuance of the directions given to him by the owner, i.e., consignor of goods, he had withheld invoice No. 9. The G.R. relatable to invoice No. 9 having not been got issued, it could be expected of the owner, i.e., consignor to give such a direction to the driver. On bill No. 9, it has been mentioned that this is a computer generated invoice. As already noticed, Central sales tax has not been charged in this bill. If the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
