VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.7.2011 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus M/s Dolly Iron Store ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) . 1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 against the order dated 26.11.2010 Annexure A-4 passed by the VAT Tribunal proposing following substantial questions of law:- “a) Whether the order passed by the ld. Tribunal accepting the appeal is sustainable in law? b) Whether the penalty under section 51(7) (c) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 was correctly imposed in view of the facts and circumstances of the case? c) Whether the ld. Tribunal should have followed the law laid down in the case of Jain Industrial Company Vs. State of Punjab which was a correct decision in view of the facts and circumstances of the case? VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2011 -2- *** d) Whether the ld. Tribunal could change its opinion while deciding the appeal of the respondent in this case? e) Whether documents could be produced after the detention of the goods in the absence of any such provision in Section 51 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and such documents could be relied upon as an afterthought? 2. The respondent transported the goods in a vehicle from Mandi Gobindgarh to Faridabad. On the check post, documents were produced by the driver of the vehicle. The authority on the check post under the provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax, 2005 took proceedings for alleged attempt at evasion. The Designated Authority recorded a finding of attempt to evade tax which was upheld by the Appellate Authority but on further appeal, the Tribunal held that there was no attempt to evade tax as the driver had given correct particulars of the invoice and it was a case of mistake of noting the particulars in the computer. Relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under:- “On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that driver had voluntarily reported at the ICC. He had, in fact, produced documents of both the invoices but the computer clerk generated declaration in respect of Invoice No.102 pertaining to GR No.473. It was argued that driver had not left the ICC and had produced the documents and declaration made before the ETO, on duty. Even otherwise, the documents of Invoice No.101 and GR No.474 were found from the driver at that very time and there was no question of avoiding declaration u/s 51(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax-2005. VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2011 -3- *** Under these circumstances, it could not lead to the conclusion that there was an attempt to evade tax. It was further pointed out that Exim forms of Haryana were there and the bills had been issued from a bound bill book and bill No.101 preceded No.102. On behalf of the State, it was argued that declaration in respect of goods of invoice No.101 and GR No.473 was not intentionally made and if the goods had left Punjab, then the transaction would have gone unaccounted and this was with a view to attempt to evade tax. Bill book had been produced. The invoice had been issued from bound bill book. The goods of both consignment were meant for Faridabad. When declaration in respect of invoice No.102 had been made, then invoice No.101 could not be later on deleted from the bill book and books of account and the transaction could not go unaccounted. The driver had voluntarily reported at the ICC and the documents of invoice No.101 an GR pertaining to that invoice was also with the driver which appears to have been taken into possession by the department authorities before the appearance of dealer. In facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that non declaration at the ICC in respect of goods of Invoice No.101 and GR No.473 was with a view to attempt to evade tax. As such, we find merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly accepted. Orders of the authorities below are set aside.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. VAT Appeal No. 47 of 2011 -4- *** 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that number of correct invoice was deliberately withheld and, thus, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that there is no attempt to evade tax. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no attempt to evade tax is certainly a possible view. The questions raised cannot, thus, be held to be substantial questions of law. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 18, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge