JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. - The State of Punjab has approached this court by filing this appeal under section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity "the Act") challenging order dated December 18, 2008 (A7) passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity "the Tribunal") holding that issuance of notice to the consignee of the goods as per the amended provisions of section 14B(7)(iii) of the Act was mandatory because when the goods were intercepted on October 13, 2002 at ICC barrier, the amendment made in section 14B(7)(iii) of the Act was operative. The Tribunal has further taken the view that once amended provision has not been complied with then the order imposing penalty on the dealer - respondent was unsustainable. The Tribunal has further found that although the driver did not report the transaction at the ICC barrier but all other documents were complete and were in the possession of the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal observed : "The driver of the vehicle had an invoice. Consignor was the present appellant based at Nawashahar in Punjab whereas consignee was of Mysore State. The goods were dryer cylinders, i.e., machinery item. The CST at four per cent had been charged in the bill. The CST/ST No. of the consignor and consignee was very well mentioned in the bill. The driver had the GR also on which there was reference of the bill and value thereof. The names of the consignor and the consignee were also there in the GR. CST forms had been later on sent by the Mysore party to the present appellant and sale had been duly accounted for. Even though driver did not report the transaction at the ICC while leaving the State, still in the circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded that there was an attempt to evade or avoid tax." We have heard the learned State counsel at length and do not feel persuaded to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It has remained undisputed that according to the amendment made in section 14B(7)(iii) of the Act the issuance of notice to the consignee of the goods was mandatory and the amendment became effective from July 15, 2002. The goods were intercepted after the amendment on October 13, 2002. The amendment had provided for issuance of notice to the consignee. It has remained undisputed that according to the amendment made in section 14B(7)(iii) of the Act the issuance of notice to the consignee of the goods was mandatory and the amendment became effective from July 15, 2002. The goods were intercepted after the amendment on October 13, 2002. The amendment had provided for issuance of notice to the consignee. It is admitted fact that no notice in pursuance of amendment was issued to the consignee. Therefore, the Tribunal has taken a correct view that the order of penalty imposed by the appellate authority is vitiated. The Tribunal has otherwise found on merits that all other documents were complete in all respects and were in the possession of the person in charge of the vehicle. Therefore, penalty could not be imposed as no intention to evade tax could be inferred. In such a situation non-reporting at the ICC barrier loses significance. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal as it does not raise any substantive question of law warranting its admission. The appeal is wholly without merit. Dismissed. In view of the fact that main appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not feel the necessity of passing any order on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.