9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ") in VAT Appeal No. 219 of 2015, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the order passed by the Ld. VAT Tribunal is sustainable in law? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Ld. VAT Tribunal is sustainable in law when in the present case, the respondent had intentionally made an attempt to evade the tax by adopting the modus operandi as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs? (iii) Whether the Ld. Tribunal had rightly allowed the appeal of the Respondent when an attempt to evade the tax is proved on the basis of facts and documents available on record? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. It is mandatory for every taxable person und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of 3910 Kgs of TMT Bar nor any information by way of e-trip as required under Rule 64-B of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules was furnished. Accordingly, the goods were detained and notice was issued. However, the goods were got released on furnishing of bank guarantees of Rs. 37,875/- and Rs. 12,625/- totalling Rs. 50,500/-. Appellant No.3 vide order dated 16.5.2013 (Annexure A-1) imposed the penalty of Rs. 50,500/- under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure A-2) upheld the order, Annexure A-1, and dismissed the appeal. Against the order, Annexure A-2, the respondent filed an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be attributed to the assessee. Even the sale voucher issued by the assessee to Vikram Enterprises was produced before the Designated Officer and this fact is duly mentioned in the order. In view of the above, it appeared that the goods carried by the assessee from Mandi Gobindgarh to Jalalabad through the truck were covered by the proper and genuine documents. The confusion was created on account of the fact that these were two consignments and the Designated Officer doubted that the bill issued by the assessee in favour of Vikram Enterprises was fictitious. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the said doubt was just a camouflage in order to pass incorrect order of penalty. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMT bars by M/s Aar Kay Industries to the appellant then the notice of enquiry could have been issued to the said selling firm or his business premises could have been inspected but this factor could not be attributed to the appellant. The law does not require that the purchase voucher as issued by M/s Aar Kay Industries to the appellant should also accompany the goods. The sale voucher is issued by the appellant to Vikram Enterprises was produced before the Designated Officer which also finds mention in the order. All this goes to show that the goods carried by the appellant from Mandi Gobindgarh to Jalalabad through the truck were covered by the proper and genuine documents. The confusion was created on account of the fact that these w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
