VATAP No.69 of 2009 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VATAP No.69 of 2009
Date of Order: 3.11.2009
State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
Versus
M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd
....Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. P.K. Jain, Addl.A.G, Punjab for the appellants.
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR,J
Instant appeal filed under Section 68(2) of Punjab Value Added
Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against order dated
11.5.2009 (Annexure A.3) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab
(for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal (VAT) No.247 of 2008-09. The
Tribunal has recorded categoric findings that the words “PLSAGE” when
written in capital letter in the bill and G.R start appearing to be in the same
handwriting. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that when other
writing on the bill and GR is compared, then it cannot be said that these
were in the same handwriting. On the second issue that the bill issued by
Northern Aromatics Ltd, Sahibabad (UP)-consigner party had not signed,
the Tribunal has observed that it would not make much difference as the
VATAP No.69 of 2009 #2#
C.S.T had been charged, the vehicle had voluntarily reported at the ICC
barrier and the consigner party was not to allow these transactions to go
unaccounted. The document produced also showed that consigner party i.e
Northern Aromatics Ltd, Sahibabad (UP) was making huge sale of heavy
amounts to Dabur India Ltd and was also making sales to the respondents-
dealers i.e M/s Pepsi Foods Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal has observed that no
presumption could be drawn that there was an attempt to evade tax merely
because of non-signing of the bill. Accordingly, penalty imposed under
Section 51(7)(b) of the Act has been deleted.
Having heard the learned counsel, we find that no substantive
question of law within the meaning of Section 68(1) of the Act would arise
warranting admission of the appeal as the finding of fact has been recorded
by the Tribunal. Firstly handwriting cannot be presumed in the same hands
and non-signing of the bill was insignificant as the vehicle had voluntarily
reported at the ICC and all other documents had been produced as
prescribed by the Rules.
Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
( M.M. KUMAR )
JUDGE
November 03, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH )
manoj JUDGE