- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under section 68(1) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short "the Act") against the order dated April 2, 2012, annexure A5, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (in short, "the Tribunal"), proposing to raise following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the order passed under section 51(7) of the PVAT Act, 2005 inspite of section 51(12) is justifiable whereas the owner of the goods appeared before the enquiry officer? (2) Whether in this case the value of the goods has been enhanced merely for the purpose of enhancement of penalty amount is justified or not? (3) Whether, the goods not to be put in auction is violation of the provisions of rule 70 of the Punjab VAT Rules, 2005, where the owner of the goods repeatedly requested for open auction? (4) Whether penalty can be imposed on the goods which were for replacement in lieu of defective goods? (5) Whether the proceedings and penalty order are without jurisdiction and without authority of law? (6) Who is liable for the goods lying in the custody of the Department for the last four years especially when the appellant is asking time and again for auction of the goods? (7) Whether the act of the Department to keep the goods for such a long period is illegal and mala fide, when the appellant is asking time and again for auction of the goods? (8) Whether the impugned orders of courts below are perverse, contrary to evidence and based upon misreading/misinterpretation of evidence/law and thus liable to be set aside?" A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The appellant is a registered dealer in the State of Gujarat. It is engaged in the manufacturing and export of bicycle tube valves and auto tyre valves. It has regular dealing with Punjab dealers and is supplying goods to them. During the course of business, a huge quantity of goods were found defective by the purchasing dealers which were returned back by the dealers for replacement. The appellant sent these goods as replacement in lieu of defective goods received back from the purchasers. According to the appellant, since the goods in question were moved by way of replacement and not by way of sale, generally the authorities at barriers do not fill the requisite forms and generate the information at ICC by saying that if the goods have moved otherwise than by way of sales then there is no need to fill the declaration form. On February 28, 2008, the said goods were detained by the Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO). The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on March 14, 2008 along with the necessary documentary evidence but the officer did not listen to his request and imposed penalty by ignoring the owner of the goods, i.e., consignor-Perfect Industries and passed order dated March 14, 2008, annexure A1 in the name of M/s. Northern Carriers (P) Limited Ludhiana, i.e., transporter. The appellant avers that the penalty was imposed taking value of goods on very high side. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Pariala (DETC) which was dismissed vide order dated May 7, 2010, annexure A3. Still not satisfied, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated April 2, 2012, annexure A5. Hence the present appeal by the appellant-assessee.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) The learned counsel for the State submitted that the goods which were impounded had been put to auction and had been purchased by M/s. Trishul Wood Pvt. Limited, Mohali for a sum of Rs. 36,71,000. This fact was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, on instructions from Shri Abhishek Duggal, ETO, Mobile Wing Chandigarh, present in court, had agreed that the amount recovered on account of sale of goods valuing Rs. 36,71,000 would be adjusted towards the liability of the assessee and the excess amount shall be released within one month. Learned counsel for the appellant had also agreed to the same. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of by permitting the State to adjust the amount of liability from the sale consideration of Rs. 36,71,000 and to release the excess amount to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.;