- (1.) Delay in re-filing 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 September 22, 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, there is any legal evidence available on record to sustain the findings of the authorities below that the appellant had brought the goods from Delhi through escape route in a situation when the goods were admittedly taken possession from within the town ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, there is any legal evidence to sustain the findings that the appellant attempted to evade the payment of tax by wilfully failing to file any declaration at the entry barrier can be sustained simply on some documents of weighment slips allegedly given by someone to ETO without there being any independent evidence ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the respondents have failed to assign any ground to reject the stand of the appellant right from day one that the goods with vehicles were taken possession forcibly from the business premises of the dealer ? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the authorities below are justified in ignoring the written orders placed by the local dealer duly supported for the supply of the goods as also the account books of the dealer without proper scrutiny and hold him guilty of evasion of tax and the action is illegal and arbitrary ?
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that during the course of checking under section 51(7) of the Act, the vehicles bearing registration Nos. HR-38D-6827, HR-37B-8893 and PB-13H-7305 carrying iron scrap from Delhi to Mandi Gobindgarh, were intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assistant Director (Investigation), Patiala, on special information on April 29, 2008. On demand, the drivers failed to produce any document, i.e., invoice, challan, delivery note, G. R./log book or trip sheet of the goods loaded in their respective vehicles. The detaining officer recorded the statements of the drivers at the spot in which they admitted that they had loaded the goods from Delhi and had also not furnished the information with regard to the purchase of these goods at any Information Collection Centre (ICC) of the State of Punjab and had also not paid any entry tax. The detaining officer on getting suspicion regarding the genuineness of the transaction, detained the goods under section 51(6)(b) of the Act for verification. The matter was sent to the AETC-cum-Deputy Director (Investigation), Patiala, who after having conducted inquiry, imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,18,937 under section 51(7)(c) of the Act. Against the said penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated January 28, 2011 dismissed the appeal. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated September 22, 2011, affirmed the orders and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal was in error in upholding the penalty levied upon the appellant on account of an attempt to evade tax. The findings are contrary to the record and are, thus, legally unsustainable.;