- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the assessee-appellant under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") against the order dated June 11, 2009 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal (VAT) No. 246 of 2008-09, proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether the act on the part of the respondents to impose the penalty without taking into account that the transaction was a genuine, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (b) Whether the action on the part of the respondents not to consider the genuine documents and impose penalty only due to one bona fide mistake which occurred due to the fault of printer, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (c) Whether the impugned orders are legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the instant appeal are that the assessee is a registered dealer and engaged in the business of M.S. ingots (Iron and Steel) and sent goods to M/s. Mittal Steel Industries against challan as required under section 51(2) of the Act. The said goods were intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana-respondent No. 3. The assessee produced the relevant documents like stock register, challan but respondent No. 2 vide order dated April 25, 2007 imposed the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,39,500 under section 51(7)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee approached the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana Division, Ludhiana-respondent No. 1 who vide order July 28, 2008 dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated June 11, 2009 dismissed the same holding that the goods were meant for trade and were not covered by proper and genuine documents as required under section 51(2) of the Act, and as such there was an attempt to evade tax. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
(3.) The point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the vehicle which had crossed barrier when it was intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Department was carrying genuine documents as required under section 51(2) of the Act.;