LAWS(P&H)-2012-8-629

ATTAIRE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On August 28, 2012
ATTAIRE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay in refiling 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 May 19, 2011 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") claiming the following substantial questions of law :

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee is a registered dealer and is carrying on the business of sale of readymade garments imported from outside the State. On September 16, 2006, the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HR-38H-4886 carrying goods stopped at ICC, Shambu and produced the required documents. However, the goods were detained in the absence of required documents. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee to appear before the Excise and Taxation Officer on September 18, 2006 and the goods were released against surety bond. On September 18, 2006, the assessee submitted all the relevant documents as shown in the bill/invoice. The matter was sent to respondent No. 2-Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the assessee appeared before him on September 25, 2006 and explained the matter at length. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated September 29, 2006 (annexure A1) imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,56,750 under section 51(7)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved against the said penalty, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority who vide order dated July 6, 2010 (annexure A2) dismissed the appeal. Being dissatisfied with the said orders, annexure A1 and A2, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated May 19, 2011 (annexure A3) dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there was an attempt to evade tax on the part of the appellant.