Ajay Kumar Mittal - This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated November 15, 2010 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, "the Tribunal") in Appeal (VAT) No. 176 of 2010, claiming the following substantial questions of law :

"(a) Whether the findings of the learned Tribunal holding that non-reporting at the ICC and not making declaration in the prescribed form could not lead to the conclusion that there was violation of section 51(4) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 with a view to do an attempt to evade tax are correct in the facts and circumstances of the case ?

(b) Whether it was mandatory on the part of the drivers of the vehicles to voluntarily stop at the ICC and give information of the inter-State transaction for getting form VAT XXXVI generated and by not doing so, an attempt to evade the tax was made ?

(c) Whether penalty was correctly imposed under section 51(7)(c) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for making an attempt to evade the tax by not giving the information of the transaction even though the goods were sent for loading in the railway wagon in the State of Punjab ?

(d) Whether the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by this honourable High Court that penalty is to be imposed for making an attempt to evade the tax especially when the documents were recovered from the drivers after getting the vehicles stopped when they failed to give information of the transaction at the ICC ?"

Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plywood, board, etc., having TIN No. 03731130623 and is registered under the Act. It is effecting sales of its products to the dealers within and outside the State of Punjab. The assessee had sold goods to M/s. Sharp Ply (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, a dealer duly registered under the local and Central sales tax laws of that State. The containers were despatched in vehicles bearing registration Nos. PB-08N-9905 and PB-08AV-9032 along with invoice Nos. 318 and 319 dated October 13, 2008 for the amount of Rs. 5,61,649 and 5,61,649, respectively and the goods receipts Nos. 243 and 244 dated October 13, 2008 of M/s. Kamal Kiran Road Carriers, Yamuna Nagar with destination from Shahpur to Dappar to Bangalore. The said vehicles were checked and detained by the authorities of ICC, Banur on the basis that the drivers of the vehicles had failed to furnish information at the ICC before exit from the State of Punjab. A notice was issued to the owner of the goods for appearance on October 15, 2008. On October 16, 2008, the goods were got released by the assessee against bank guarantee of Rs. 5,61,649. The detaining officer submitted the case to the ETO-cum-Officer-in-charge, ICC Banur for initiating action under section 51(7)(c) of the Act. To afford an opportunity to the consignor, notice under section 51(7)(c) of the Act was issued for October 21, 2008 to prove the genuineness of the transaction and reasons for not reporting the transaction at the ICC as required under section 51(4) of the Act. After hearing the consignor, the ETO-cum-Officer-in-charge ICC, Banur vide order dated October 22, 2008 imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,61,649 under section 51(7)(c) of the Act by observing that an attempt was made to evade tax. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Joint Director (Enforcement), Patiala Division, Patiala who vide order dated January 7, 2010 upheld the order of penalty and dismissed the appeal. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated November 15, 2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order. Hence, the present appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

The Tribunal while adjudicating the appeal filed by the assessee h