Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S A.N. Gas System vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 8 August, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102481-DB
VATAP-38-2011 (O&M) 1
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
VATAP-38-2011 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 08.08.2024
M/S A.N. GAS SYSTEM .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Rishabh Singla, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, DAG, Punjab, and
Ms. Vidhi Malhotra, Advocate.
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. Present VAT appeal is preferred by the appellant, assailing the
order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure A-8) passed by the Chairman, Value
Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal'),
whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant is a dealer, who was duly registered under the
provisions of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act as well as under the Central
Sales Tax Act,1956 and is engaged in the trading of LPG Valves.
3. The appellant submits that he notified the Assessing Authority
in Moga about sending goods on consignment, with a copy received on
22.02.2009. The goods, invoiced at Rs. 15,00,000 on 23.02.2009, were
accompanied by Form VAT-47 issued by the Rajasthan Government sent by
the Rajasthan Dealer to the Punjab Dealer. On 24.02.2009, the goods were
detained at ICC for document verification. The appellant provided required
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102481-DB
documents before the Enquiry Officer, but a penalty of Rs. 4,50,000 was
imposed under section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act on 09.03.2009.
Appeals to the First Appellate Authority on 21.05.2010 and the Punjab VAT
Tribunal on 15.11.2010 were dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has
failed to take note of the fact that the appellant himself had surrendered at
the barriers. And therefore, it cannot be a case of non-disclosure. The
penalty therefore, has wrongly been imposed on the appellant.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the order
passed by the Tribunal in which it is stated that the appellant has nowhere
mentioned the name of the station where the goods were to reach. Neither,
the GR was with the driver nor the destination of the goods was mentioned
in the VAT invoice. The appellant has neither charged tax or VAT in the bill
nor any agreement of agency was produced. Therefore, the Tribunal has
rightly examined the facts of the case and the order passed by it does not
want any interference.
6. Although, in the writ jurisdiction, this Court would sparingly
use its powers to cause interference in the order passed by the Tribunal,
however, in the appeal, this Court can examine the facts also, when a
substantial question of law is involved.
7. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has made the
following observations:-
"It comes out that LPG valves 1000 pieces with rate
1500 per piece of the value of Rs. 15,00,000/- were
being sent to M/s Pahwa Auto Gas. It was not
mentioned as to which station the goods were to go. GR
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102481-DB
was not with the driver. However, in the invoice, it was
written that the goods were being sent against 'F'- Form.
No tax or VAT had been charged in the bill on this
ground. No agreement of agency with M/s Pahwa Auto
Gas, Sri Ganganagar had been produced. When the
goods were sent out side the State without charging tax
for interstate sale or VAT for interstate sale and an
exemption from payment of tax has been sought to be
taken on account of particular facility, then certain
provisions are to be complied and the consignor was to
remain particular. The documents were not complete in
this case. This is no explanation as to why GR was not
with the driver and designation station was not
mentioned any where in the invoice. The transaction had
been treated in a very casual way by the consigner may
be with an intention to evade tax. As per section 51(2)
of the Punjab VAT Act, driver Incharge of the vehicle
has to carry invoice and goods receipt which was not
there. No tax had been charged.
In the facts & circumstances of the case, I do not
find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly
dismissed."
8. This Court while examining the similar case titled as "M/s
Punjab Wools Syndicate vs. State of Punjab and another" , passed in
VATAP-57-2010 (O&M), decided on 18.01.2023, noted that the invoices
reflected the inter-state sale. In the present case also, the sales were inter-
State but the driver did not possess the Goods Receipt (GR) and no
explanation for the same has been mentioned. In the present case, 1000
pieces of LPG valves at the rate of Rs.1500/- per piece valuing Rs.15 lacs
were being sent.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102481-DB
9. As per Section 51 (2) of the Punjab VAT Act, the driver In-
charge of the vehicle has to carry invoice and GR which were admittedly
not available with him, nor any tax has been charged.
10. In the circumstances, judgment passed in M/s Punjab Wool
Syndicate's case (supra) has no application in the present case as in that
case, this Court had found that the driver had produced the invoices and the
Court observed that once, he had produced the invoices, he is not expected
to give further details relating to the invoices.
11. In the present case as noticed above, the facts are altogether
different. In the absence of GR, the authorities have taken a correct course
of action and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeal of the appellant.
12. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order
passed by the VAT Tribunal as no substantial question of law arises for
consideration.
13. Accordingly, present VAT appeal stands dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed
of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
08.08.2024
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
