- (1.) The assessee-dealer has filed this appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 28.4.2011, Annexure A-14 passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.252 of 2010, claiming following substantial questions of law:- 1) Whether or not under the circumstances of the case, the appellant has made any attempt to evade tax and thus liable for penalty under section 51(7) (c) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005? 2) Whether or not under the circumstances of the case, mere negligence of the driver to obtain transit slip under section 51(4) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 is sufficient ground to impose penalty under section 51(7) (c), in the absence of any attempt to evade tax and opting for a longer route? 3) Whether or not under the circumstances of the case, penalty under section 51(7) (c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 can be imposed without making any proper enquiry? 4) Whether or not under the circumstances of the case, the order passed by Hon'ble Punjab VAT Tribunal is non speaking and not in conformity with the principles of natural justice? 5) Whether or not under the circumstances, penalty under section 51(7) (c) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 can be imposed merely upon presumptions without establishing attempt to evade tax? 6) Whether or not under the circumstances of the case, penalty can be imposed especially when the entire payment is routed through bank and major portion of payment is made in advance through bank for same transaction?
(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a partnership firm and is registered under the provisions of Delhi VAT Act at New Delhi. It is running a house of dairy products. It purchased ghee from Health Aid Food Specialist Private Limited, Airport, Amritsar to the tune of Rs.2,20,09,009/- for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. On 5.9.2009, the appellant out of this stock sold 350 tins of desi ghee to M/s Jay Pee Traders, Lower Raghunath Bazar, Jammu. The bill bearing Number 321 dated 5.9.2009 was issued by Ramson's, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in favour of M/s Jay Pee Traders, Jammu alongwith GR bearing No.488825 dated 5.9.2009 by M/s Patiala Freightways (regd.). However, the goods could not be dispatched on 5.9.2009 to the consignee at his instructions as he had requested to dispatch the same in the week of October 2009. However, the goods were finally dispatched on 1.10.2009 and reached Amritsar instead of Jammu on 2.10.2009. The goods were brought to Amritsar instead of Jammu because there was no direct transportation service available for Jammu from the transport company which was hired for transportation of the goods. The goods were found lying in the godown of M/s Indian Cargo Booking Agency (Patiala Freightway Regd.), Amritrsar when these were seized by the Office of Civil Surgeon, Amritsar on 13.10.2009. On checking of the documents by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, it was found that the goods were meant for trade and were dispatched from New Delhi to Jammu but transit slip was not with the goods. The mandatory information as required under section 51(4) of the Act was not furnished at the Information Collection Centre of Punjab, while entering into the limits of State of Punjab. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.5,90,835/- was imposed vide order dated 10.11.2009, Annexure A-7 by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Amritsar. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 12.3.2010, Annexure A9, which was rejected vide order dated 6.5.2010, Annexure A10. The second appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2011, Annexure A14. Hence this appeal by the assessee.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessing authority was in error in imposing penalty under section 51 (7) (c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had attempted to evade tax. He submitted that the goods were sent by the assessee- dealer from Delhi and the destination was M/s Jay Pee Trades, Jammu and in such a situation, there was no loss of revenue to the State of Punjab as infact no tax was payable in Punjab being only transit State.;