JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from VATAP-64-2009.

2. The appellant-State through instant appeal under Section 68 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘2005 Act’) is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.11.2008 passed by VAT Tribunal, Punjab (for short ‘Tribunal’).

3. In the morning of 02.01.2002, Excise and Taxation Officer (for short ‘ETO’) Patiala stopped vehicle bearing No.CH-01P-3908 suspecting evasion of tax payable under Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short ‘PGST’). The driver of the vehicle produced following documents:-

i. Invoice-cum-delivery challan dated 31.12.2001 issued by respondent in favour of M/s Pee Kesi Agro Chemicals, Patiala.

ii. GR No. 13366 dated 01.01.2002 of M/s Bombay Banaras Transport Company (Regd.) from Zirakpur to Patiala.

iii. ST-XXIV-A form dated 01.01.20020 generated by Information Collection Center (for short ‘ICC Banur’).

4. ETO formed an opinion that there is mismatch in the documents, thus, he ordered to detain the goods. The respondent was issued notice. The matter was referred to AETC, Patiala who conducted inquiry as contemplated by Section 14B of PGST. He concluded that there was an attempt to evade tax, thus, dealer is liable to penalty to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- under Section 14B(7)(ii) of PGST.

5. The respondent-dealer preferred appeal which came to be dismissed by DETC (Appeal) vide order dated 19.06.2006. The respondent preferred second appeal before Tribunal which came to be allowed vide order dated 17.11.2008.

6. Learned State counsel submits that there was cutting in the invoice. GR accompanying the vehicle was dated 01.01.2002 whereas invoice was dated 31.12.2001. The goods reached in the late night of 01.01.2002 at ICC Banur. The distance between the place of consigner and consignee was 60 km., thus, there was no question to reach vehicle at ICC in the night of 01.01.2002. There was cutting in the invoice which proved attempt to evade payment of tax.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that there was no attempt to evade payment of tax. The goods were detained by ETO after reporting by dealer at ICC. Had there been intention to evade payment of tax, there was no question to report at ICC. The moment goods are reported at ICC, dealer becomes liable to enter goods in the books of accounts and pay tax. The respondent did not charge tax in the regular assessment which indicates that there was no evasion of tax. The respondent was an American company and bulk of goods were cleared on 31.12.2001 i.e. last date of financial year. The respondent could arrange many trucks on 31.12.2001, however, 2-3 trucks could be arranged on 01.01.2001, thus, alteration with respect to GR and truck number was made in invoices.

8. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

9. The State has filed appeal under Section 68 of 2005 Act. The appellant has raised following substantial questions of law:-

i. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal without considering the arguments of the counsel for the State as well as of the Respondent is sustainable in law?

ii. Whether the Tribunal was bound to have discussed the arguments of the counsel for the State in his order while accepting the appeal of the Respondent?

10. From the perusal of afore-cited questions and impugned order, it is impossible even to draw inference that any question of law much less substantial question of law has been raised by appellant. It appears that appellant casually and for the sake of formality has filed instant appeal. The issue involved was evasion of tax. The appellant has not raised any issue with respect to allegation of evasion of tax. The appellant has not pointed out any argument which was not adverted to by learned Tribunal whereas reading of impugned order reveals that complete factual and lega