VAT Appeal No.75 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No.75 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.1.2011 M/s Kapoor Traders ...Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee under Section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005 (for short 'the Act”) against order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Tribunal in appeal (VAT) No.71 of 2010, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the dealer had made any attempt to evade the tax and is thus liable for penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act? b) Whether the accompanying challan, being hand written can be basis for the imposition of penalty in absence of any other evidence? c) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of VAT Appeal No.75 of 2010 -2- **** the case, the order passed by the Tribunal is non- speaking and not in the conformity with the principles of natural justice? d) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal is justified in upholding the penalty imposed under section 51 on the ground of violation of rule 57, even though there is specific provision under section 57 to deal with such like situations liberally when there is no finding that there was any voluntary evasion of tax which would attract penalty under section 51? 2. The assessee despatched goods from Ludhiana to Delhi in vehicle No.PB-10-AK-9762 along with GR and letter showing return of goods. The detaining authority at the check post was of the view that in absence of challan/debit note with the returned goods, there appeared to be attempt at evasion. The said authority thereafter imposed penalty of ` 29,550/- which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and also by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with the following observations:- “I have heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the State due inquiry has been made in the case by the punishing officer. The goods were being carried without proper documents i.e. delivery note as prescribed under the Punjab VAT Rule 57 of the Vat Rules.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. VAT Appeal No.75 of 2010 -3- **** 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has failed to go into the question whether there was attempt at evasion. The penalty under Section 51 of the Act could be justified only if there was attempt at evasion of tax, which could not be inferred merely from deficiency in documents without considering the view point of the dealer. Learned counsel relies upon order of this Court dated 24.8.2010 in VAT Appeal No.46 of 2010- M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited Vs. The State of Punjab and another wherein in absence of finding to the effect that there was attempt at evasion, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. 5. Following the above order, we dispose of this appeal in same terms, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to it for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Appellant may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 7.3.2011. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 31,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge