- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-assessee under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the PVAT Act") against the order dated 30.3.2015, Annexure A.1 passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") upholding penalty of Rs. 2,84,600/- under section 51(7)(c) of the Act, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether production of documents relating to the goods produced after 20 hours of detention is not lawful when as per provisions of Section 51(7)(c) of the Act ibid, the detaining officer is under legal obligation to allow 72 hours to the owner of the goods to prove the genuineness of the transaction before him in his office ii) Whether the VAT Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty for non reporting at the ICC when in a number of cases it has been held that mere non reporting at ICC is not a good ground for levy of penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the Act ibid unless attempt to evade tax is proved beyond doubt iii) Whether respondent No.2 was justified to levy a penalty on the same day of receiving the report of the detaining officer overlooking the principle of natural justice and without giving an opportunity of being heard and production of account books to the appellant iv) Whether respondent No.2 was justified to levy a penalty only on the basis of statement of driver without conducting any enquiry as provided under section 51(7)(c) of the Act ibid to prove an attempt to evade tax by the appellant -
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is a firm. It is engaged in the business of resale of pulses and other karyana goods at Kharar, (Punjab). It is registered under the PVAT Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, "the CST Act"). It has been filing its returns regularly with the appropriate authority at Mohali and paying the tax in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The assessee imported 207 quintals of mixed dal (pulses) from M/s Atma Ram Om Parkash Grain Merchants and Commission Agents, 2746, Ist floor, Naya Bazaar, Delhi. The goods were covered by GR No.2338 dated 11.9.2008 of Dashmesh Carriers from Delhi to Kharar. The driver of the vehicle was not familiar with the route. Having paid toll tax at the toll plaza at Ghaggar on the border of Punjab and Haryana, the driver did not know about the ICC Banur and failed to stop the vehicle there for generation of Form VAT XXXVI. The two police officials from the ICC, Banur overtook the vehicle about half a kilometer beyond the ICC and directed the driver to take the vehicle to ICC. The Excise and Taxation Inspector on duty asked the driver to produce bill and GR pertaining to the goods under transport. The driver produced bill No.3650 dated 11.9.2008 for Rs. 5,69,200/- issued by the Delhi dealer and GR No.2338 dated 11.9.2008 of Dashmesh Carriers from Delhi to Kharar. The Taxation Inspector refused to take the documents on record and made out a case that the goods were not covered by any bill of sale or GR as required under section 51(2) of the PVAT Act. The goods were detained by the Excise and Taxation Inspector on duty under section 51(6) (b) of the PVAT Act and notice was issued to the owner for 13.8.2014 to produce proper and genuine documents. Representative of the appellantassessee alongwith the counsel appeared before the detaining officer on the said date and produced the bill and the GR in custody of the driver. Thereafter, the detaining officer forwarded the case to the ETO-cumDesignated officer for taking necessary action under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act. Notice under section 51(7) of the PVAT Act was issued to the assessee for production of account books and to show cause as to why penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act be not imposed. According to the appellant-assessee, though notice was issued by respondent No.2 for 18.9.2008, the case was decided on 13.9.2008, thus denying the opportunity to the appellant to produce account books and other evidence to prove the genuineness of the documents submitted before the detaining officer. The detaining officer levied penalty of Rs. 2,84,600/- under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act being 50% of the value of goods. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Appeals). Vide order dated 6.11.2012, Annexure A.3, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that no enquiry had been conducted by respondent No.2 before levying penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the PVAT Act. According to the assessee, the goods were detained on 12.9.2008 while the penalty was imposed on 13.9.2008 without affording any opportunity to it to produce account books and to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.3.2015, Annexure A.1 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the documents were furnished 20 hours after detention and no account books were produced. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.;