STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DHIMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the impugned order dated March 17, 2011, annexure A3, passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated February 25, 2010, annexure A2, passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Investigation), Patiala Division, Patiala, has been allowed. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. On February 20, 2007, vehicle No. HR-37A-1115 loaded with iron and steel goods crossed the Information Collection Centre, Shambhu (Export) at Mehmadpur, District Patiala, without furnishing the prescribed information. It was intercepted from some distance. According to the appellants, the driver of the vehicle also tried to bribe the police constable on duty at the exit point of the ICC which he did not accept and reported the matter to the Excise and Taxation Officer. On verification of documents, it was found that there was difference in the rates of the goods mentioned on the delivery slip and the invoice. The goods were not accompanied by proper and genuine documents. Accordingly, the goods were detained under section 51(6)(b) of the Act. Notice was issued to the respondent to appear and produce the books of account and other documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The respondent did not appear and the case was referred to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (AETC), who also issued notice to the respondent. Again none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, the ABTC passed order dated February 28, 2007, annexure Al, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,81,884 against the respondent under section 51(7)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Investigation), Patiala Division, Patiala, which was dismissed vide order dated February 25, 2010, annexure A2. The respondent filed second appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated March 17, 2011, annexure A3, the appeal was accepted. Hence this appeal by the State of Punjab before this court.

(2.) The solitary question for determination is whether there was any attempt to evade tax within the ambit of section 51(7)(c) of the Act by the respondent-dealer. The Tribunal while reversing the findings of the authorities below came to the conclusion that there was no attempt to evade tax by the dealer. The findings as recorded by the Tribunal read as under: