- (1.) The present appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 9.4.2005 passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 243 of 2012: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has made any attempt to evade the tax even though Entry Tax had been deposited in the account of person who has to hand over money to the driver even before the goods have been detained (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the appellate authority and Tribunal are perverse in nature inasmuch as they have recorded that the goods had been detained at 10.52 AM, whereas the detention order records it to have been detained at 12.30 PM (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty under Section 51(7)(c) whereas the goods and vehicle were still within the premises of ICC -
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the truck bearing No. RJ-31-GD-0770, two consignments from two different consignors for two different consignees were loaded. The destination was Moga. The goods imported were excisable. These were purchased by the appellant on concessional rate of tax against form 'C'. In one of the consignments, the consignee was M/s Manju Sanitary Ware, namely, the appellant, whereas in the other, the consignee was M/s Manju Enterprises. Statutory form No. 402 for export of goods outside the State of Gujarat was generated for both the consignments. The goods were declared at Information Collection Centre, Sito Gunno. The entry tax leviabe for one consignment imported by M/s Manju Enterprises was deposited by the agent, whereas for the second consignment, there was some delay as the amount was yet to be transferred by the appellant in the account of the agent. A certificate issued by the banker of the appellant regarding transfer of amount in the bank account of the agent has been produced. The goods were detained at the check post. The driver was coerced to sign on blank papers. Despite the appellant producing all the documents and showing the genuineness of the transaction, penalty was levied, which was upheld in appeal by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal.
(3.) The submission is that when the vehicle was still at the barrier, documents of both the consignments were with the driver, there was no question of non-declaration of one consignment. The purchase was on concessional rates against statutory form 'C'. In case, the goods are not entered in accounts of the appellant, he will have to pay higher rate of tax to Gujarat dealer, hence, there was no benefit to evade tax. The record was produced to show that the transaction was entered in the books of accounts and even statutory form 'C' was also issued.;