9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the 2003 Act') is filed against the order dated 4.10.2017 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') claiming following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the orders of lower authorities on the ground that the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks, Mathura Road, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'NAW'), VAT D-3 challan inward showing consigner as I.C.D. Tuglabad, New Delhi and consignee- NAW (a unit of M/s Deepak Industries Ltd.), G.R. and handwritten slip in favour of the appellant. The driver in his statement stated that the goods were to be unloaded at the premises of the appellant. The statement of Arun Kumar, employee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 19.11.2012. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7.10.2013. The appeal preferred before the Tribunal met the same fate on 4.10.2017, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the penalty imposed was illegal, there could have been no evasion of tax as the goods were imported from Germany and it was accompanied by challan VAT D-3 and bill o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ands of the importer so far as import transaction is concerned but the subsequent transaction would be governed by the provisions of the Act. There is another angle to the matter that if the goods are to be imported from outside the State of Haryana, a statutory form VAT D-3 is to be issued. The form issued in the present case shows that it was issued by NAW and the consignee was shown as NAW. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs odd were detained by the authorities, yet the principal/real owner (as per the case of the appellant) neither came forward in the penalty proceedings nor produced evidence which was solely in its possession, to substantiate the stand taken and the averments made. For the reasons mentioned above, no interference is warranted in the order of the Tribunal. No question of law much less substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
