RAMSONS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assessee-dealer has filed this appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 28.4.2011, Annexure A-14 passed by the Punjab VAT Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.252 of 2010, claiming following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant is a partnership firm and is registered under the provisions of Delhi VAT Act at New Delhi. It is running a house of dairy products. It purchased ghee from Health Aid Food Specialist Private Limited, Airport, Amritsar to the tune of Rs.2,20,09,009/- for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. On 5.9.2009, the appellant out of this stock sold 350 tins of desi ghee to M/s Jay Pee Traders, Lower Raghunath Bazar, Jammu. The bill bearing Number 321 dated 5.9.2009 was issued by Ramson's, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in favour of M/s Jay Pee Traders, Jammu alongwith GR bearing No.488825 dated 5.9.2009 by M/s Patiala Freightways (regd.). However, the goods could not be dispatched on 5.9.2009 to the consignee at his instructions as he had requested to dispatch the same in the week of October 2009. However, the goods were finally dispatched on 1.10.2009 and reached Amritsar instead of Jammu on 2.10.2009. The goods were brought to Amritsar instead of Jammu because there was no direct transportation service available for Jammu from the transport company which was hired for transportation of the goods.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessing authority was in error in imposing penalty under section 51 (7) (c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had attempted to evade tax. He submitted that the goods were sent by the assessee- dealer from Delhi and the destination was M/s Jay Pee Trades, Jammu and in such a situation, there was no loss of revenue to the State of Punjab as infact no tax was payable in Punjab being only transit State.