STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. T.R. INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the State under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated May 22, 2009 (annexure A3) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The appeal was admitted vide order dated May 17, 2010 for consideration of questions Nos. (II) and (III) which are as under:

(2.) The learned State counsel submitted that there was an attempt to evade tax on the part of the respondent-assessee and, therefore, the penalty imposed under section 51(7)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,08,052 vide order dated January 25, 2007 by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib and upheld by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated April 30, 2008 was justified. The Tribunal while reversing the said orders had decided the appeal against the material on record. Learned State counsel contended that the assessee had sent consignment of steel pipes and tubes from Moga to Mandi Gobindgarh through Truck No. FB-10P-9945 with Invoice No. 238 dated January 9, 2007 showing sale to M/s. National Steel Tubes, Naraina, Delhi along with GR No. 3003 dated January 9, 2007 of M/s. Swam Goods Carrier, Moga, in which the names of the consignor and the consignee were as in the invoice but destination instead of Delhi was shown from Moga to Mandi Gobindgarh. It was argued that the invoice clearly specified destination from Moga to Mandi Gobindgarh whereas the goods were said to be sent for a dealer at Delhi. According to the learned counsel, the goods having been intercepted at Mandi Gobindgarh, the said defence was taken by the assessee whereas the goods were meant for sale in Mandi Gobindgarh and thereby an effort was there to evade payment of VAT which was payable in the State of Punjab.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the Tribunal on appreciation of material had recorded a finding and this court in appeal under section 68 of the Act would not disturb the finding of fact unless it was shown to be erroneous or perverse. It was argued that the goods were booked from Moga for Delhi via Mandi Gobindgarh as the freight by adopting the aforesaid process was less about Rs. 7,000. It was to remain competitive in the market that this system was adopted. It was contended that on earlier occasion as well in 2006 similar modus operandi adopted was accepted.