TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e part of the appellant. - The only attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant is to reappraise the evidence. We do not find that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below are illegal or perverse in any manner. The view taken by them is a plausible view which cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Assessee. - VATAP No. 255 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 18-8-2015 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Dhillon, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. A. G. Punjab JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J CM No.13884-CII of 2015 1. The documents Annexures A.4 to A.10 are allowed to be taken on record. CM stands disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of general order suppliers. During the course of business, the appellant sold goods i.e. raw rubber vide bill No.EVAT 91705 for ₹ 7,38,000/- plus VAT ₹ 29520/- totalling ₹ 767520 to M/s Oswal Enterprises, Jalandhar. The bill was covered with GR No.7741 dated 20.10.2009 of M/s Shitla Road Lines, Transport Nagar, Ludhiana. The goods were being transported in Vehicle No. PB-08U-9793 and the documents covering the goods were proper and genuine as required under Section 51(2) of the PVAT Act. While the goods in question were being transported, the same were checked by Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana and detained on the ground that a note was given on bill No. EVAT 91705 dated 20.10.2009 to the following effect:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /driver of the vehicle. The bill was also covered with GR No.7741 of M/s Shitla Road Lines, Ludhiana. The appellant in order to avoid incidental charges got reloaded the goods from the premises of M/s Dolphin Rubber Limited, Hambran, Ludhiana and the same were being transported to the premises of M/s Oswal Enterprises, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar. Before the goods in question were transported from the business premises of M/s Dolphin Rubber Limited, Hambran, the Store Incharge recorded a note on bill No.EVAT 91705 dated 20.10.2009 inadvertently and under misconception. The entire position was explained to the Detaining Officer, enquiry officer and the appellate authority but in vain. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner imposed pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoice EVAT No.91705 of the same date used by the appellant favouring M/s Oswal Enterprises, Jalandhar also had a similar note that the goods rejected and return back. Though the quantity in both the bills was the same but the rates and amounts varied. It was concurrently concluded by all the authorities that the transaction was an attempt to evade tax on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal while affirming the findings recorded by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) recorded as under:- As per the note recorded by M/s Dolphin Rubber Limited on invoice No. EVAT dated 20.10.2009 purportedly issued by M/s Eastman International, Ludhiana in favour of M/s Dolphin Rubber Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different vehicles. In Bill No.705, nowhere, it is mentioned that the goods will be/are loaded from Hambran rather it has been shown that the goods are dispatched direct from Ludhiana. Bill No.705 is only a covering document. The documents accompanying the goods are ingenuine. The goods are meant for trade. The dealer has made an attempt to evade the payment of tax by transporting the goods by documents which are already rejected. In the light of above penalty under Section 51(7)(b) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 for ₹ 2,30,256/- has been imposed.'. In my view, no exception can be taken to the above observations. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Penalizing officer is affirmed and this appeal being devoid of any merit is dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
