- (1.) Delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated May 19, 2011 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dispatch of defective goods for refinishing to a dealer would amount to trade and the technical defect render the dealer liable to maximum penalty ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the invoice/transaction on the letter head of the dealer with complete particulars of consignor and consignee and the ST/Vat numbers can be construed as an attempt to evade tax ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of fact of attempt to evade tax is based on no evidence ? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the goods were being transported back to the selling dealer for washing and refinishing accompanied by challan, would it amount to evasion of tax ? (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the dealer had submitted all relevant documents showing purchase of goods and their import in to Punjab, Stock Register and their dispatch to the Haryana supplier, could the transaction be termed as not covered by proper and genuine documents and an attempt to evade tax ?
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee is a registered dealer and is carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments imported from outside the State. On September 16, 2006, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38H-4886 carrying goods stopped at ICC, Shambu and produced the required documents. However, the goods were detained in the absence of required documents. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee to appear before the Excise and Taxation Officer on September 18, 2006 and the goods were released against surety bond. On September 18, 2006, the assessee submitted all the relevant documents as shown in the bill/invoice. The matter was sent to respondent No. 2-Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the assessee appeared before him on September 25, 2006 and explained the matter at length. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated September 29, 2006 (annexure A1) imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,56,750 under section 51(7)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated July 6, 2010 (annexure A2) dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the said orders, annexure A1 and A2, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated May 19, 2011 (annexure A3) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there was an attempt to evade tax on the part of the appellant.;