RAJIV ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The compendium of facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal filed by the Appellant-Assessee, M/s. Rajiv Enterprises (for brevity "the Assessee") and emanating from the record, is that during the course of checking and in the wake of secret/definite information, the checking officer intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-37B-4117, after chasing it for 2 km. The vehicle was carrying goods (tobacco) from Ambala City to Rajpura. It revealed that the goods were being transported for the second time through already used VAT form XXXVI along with old invoice and the GR. The modus operandi of the dealer was that once in a day, he generates one bill and GR and after that, throughout the day, he uses the same VAT form XXXVI, invoice and GR to evade the payment of tax. The explanation put forth on behalf of the Assessee, that the lapse occurred on account of the fault of the driver of the vehicle, did not find favour with the detaining officer and the matter was referred to the designated officer.

(2.) In the wake of show-cause notice as to why a penalty under Section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), may not be imposed, the advocate of the Assessee appeared before the designated officer on October 21, 2008. The case was adjourned to October 22, 2008. The counsel was confronted with the material. The Assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the documents, despite adequate opportunities. Taking into consideration the material on record and the report of the detaining officer, the designated officer recorded a finding that there was an attempt to evade the payment of tax by transporting the goods for trade without proper and genuine documents and without furnishing its information at the ICC. Therefore, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,79,739 on the Assessee under Section 51(7) (c) of the Act, vide impugned order October 24, 2008 (annexure A3).

(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned order (annexure A3), the Assessee filed the appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed vide order dated February 27, 2009 (annexure A4).