VATAP No.69 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VATAP No.69 of 2009 Date of Order: 3.11.2009 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. P.K. Jain, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J Instant appeal filed under Section 68(2) of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure A.3) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in Appeal (VAT) No.247 of 2008-09. The Tribunal has recorded categoric findings that the words “PLSAGE” when written in capital letter in the bill and G.R start appearing to be in the same handwriting. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that when other writing on the bill and GR is compared, then it cannot be said that these were in the same handwriting. On the second issue that the bill issued by Northern Aromatics Ltd, Sahibabad (UP)-consigner party had not signed, the Tribunal has observed that it would not make much difference as the VATAP No.69 of 2009 #2# C.S.T had been charged, the vehicle had voluntarily reported at the ICC barrier and the consigner party was not to allow these transactions to go unaccounted. The document produced also showed that consigner party i.e Northern Aromatics Ltd, Sahibabad (UP) was making huge sale of heavy amounts to Dabur India Ltd and was also making sales to the respondents- dealers i.e M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal has observed that no presumption could be drawn that there was an attempt to evade tax merely because of non-signing of the bill. Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act has been deleted. Having heard the learned counsel, we find that no substantive question of law within the meaning of Section 68(1) of the Act would arise warranting admission of the appeal as the finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal. Firstly handwriting cannot be presumed in the same hands and non-signing of the bill was insignificant as the vehicle had voluntarily reported at the ICC and all other documents had been produced as prescribed by the Rules. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE November 03, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE