TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the appeal being meritless is hereby dismissed. - VATAP No. 55 of 2011 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 8-8-2012 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND SANDHAWALIA G.S., JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by AJAY KUMAR MITTAL J. In this appeal filed by the assessee under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, the Act ), the following substantial questions of law are claimed: (i) Whether the order of learned Tribunal upholding the penalty order on assumptions and presumptions is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the order of the learned Tribunal upholding the penalty order on the basis of an admission of the driver recorded under threat and pressure is sustainable in law in view of the law laid down by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the assessee is running the business of resale of iron goods at Mandi Gobindgarh and purchased ERW pipes from M/s. Luxmi Narain Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh and angle from M/s. Hanumant Iron Store, Mandi Gobindgarh for a sum of ₹ 2,34,292 and ₹ 3,98,657 against the invoices dated July 24, 1998 (annexures A1 and A2) by paying VAT at the rate of four per cent. The assessee sold the said ERW pipes and angles to M/s. Madan Lal Bansal and Company, Bareta for a sum of ₹ 6,35,595 vide invoice dated July 24, 2008 (annexure A3) by charging VAT amounting to ₹ 24,446. The said goods were sent through Truck No. HR-56B-1383 of Punjab Bihar Transport Company, Mandi Gobindgarh against GR No. 1282 dated July 24, 2008. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evade tax by the appellant-dealer. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no attempt to evade the tax as the goods were sold to M/s. Madan Lal Bansal and Company which was a firm within the State of Punjab at Bareta. It was further submitted that the relevant documents were available with the driver. However, the driver had erroneously made a statement before the authorities to the effect that he was not carrying full documents. On the basis of the judgment of this court in Krish Pack Industries v. State of Punjab [2006] 28 PHT 27 it was submitted that the penalty could not have been imposed only on the basis of admission of the driver. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
