VATAP No. 11 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. VATAP No. 11 of 2009 Date of decision 1 .4.2009 M/s Charanjit Air -conditioning Service ...Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. K.L.Goyal,Advocate for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The dealer-appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act,2005 challenging order dated 24.10.2008 (A.5) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 138 of 2006-07. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the dealer-appellant had used C forms given to him for inter-state purchases being registered dealer in the State of Punjab and he was bound to account for C forms used by him. He was required to produce the record of the sales and purchases made from M/s Kirloskar Copeland Ltd., Chandigarh which the dealer-appellant failed to do so despite opportunity given. Therefore it has been held that the revenue was within its right to pass re-assessment order after coming to know of the aforesaid fact. A detailed notice requiring the dealer-appellant to produce the record was issued which he failed to produce. The claim of the dealer-appellant before the departmental authorities as well as before the VATAP No. 11 of 2009 2 Tribunal as also before us is that the purchases which the dealer appellant had made from M/s Kirloskar Copeland Ltd., Chandigarh were sold further to other parties at Chandigarh itself. No record was produced showing that such purchases made at Chandigarh from M/s Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. Chandigarh as reflected in C forms obtained from M/s Kirloskar Copeland Ltd., Chandigarh were sold by the dealer-appellant at Chandigarh to any other party. In the absence of such a record, it was not possible for any of the authorities or the Tribunal to record a finding that the purchases made by the dealer-appellant from M/s Kirloskar Copeland Ltd. as reflected in C forms obtained from them were subject matter of further sale at Chandigarh and such goods did not enter the territory of Punjab. No question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Augustine George Masih ) 1.4.2009 Judge okg