ORDER M.M. Kumar, J. - This order shall dispose of VAT Appeal Nos. 66 and 67 of 2008 because in both the cases common questions of law have been raised. These appeals filed under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for brevity, "the Act") have been preferred against separate identical orders dated March 7, 2008 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, "the Tribunal") in Appeal Nos. 125 and 126 of 2007-08. However, the facts are referred from VAT Appeal No. 67 of 2008. The appellant has sought to raise the following questions of law for determination by this court : (i) Whether, the action of the authorities below to impose penalty in an illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the material fact that the entire transaction between the appellant - firm and PUNSUP, i.e., Government agency has been completed successfully, is legally sustainable in the eyes of the law ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below to impose the penalty after ignoring the factum that the goods are not meant for trade and there is no relation of consignor as well as consignee and also that the goods are covered with genuine documents, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order A2 to A4 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? The Tribunal has found on facts that an attempt was made to evade or avoid payment of tax due or likely to be due and had taken action under section 51 of the Act and also imposed penalty under section 51(7)(b) of the Act. The plea of the appellant is that the goods belonged to PUNSUP and were removed from Chandan Rice Mills, Malout at its instance for being taken to Dhuri, where the appellant is working, for delivery to PUNSUP or FCI at Dhuri. The Tribunal found that no explanation has been tendered why the goods were taken to the premises of Shubham Industries, Bathinda and kept thereafter removal from PUNSUP at Malout for a period of over 20 days, i.e., from September 23, 2006 to October 13, 2006. The Tribunal found that no explanation has been tendered why the goods were taken to the premises of Shubham Industries, Bathinda and kept thereafter removal from PUNSUP at Malout for a period of over 20 days, i.e., from September 23, 2006 to October 13, 2006. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the trucks carrying the goods did not have any documents from PUNSUP nor from Shubham Industries, Bathinda, which as per section 51(2) of the Act were mandatorily required to be carried by the person in-charge of the goods vehicle. Even sale invoice, bill, cash memo or delivery challan containing the particulars, trip sheet or log book were also required to be with the person in-charge of the goods vehicle. No explanation was tendered why the goods were first taken and unloaded at Bhatinda and kept there for 20 days and then taken to Dhuri. After hearing learned counsel we are unable to find any question of law much less any substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeals. It is well-settled that under section 68(1) of the Act, the appeal would lie before this court only on a question of law and not on a question of fact. Sub-section (1) of section 68 of the Act reads thus : "68(1) An appeal or revision shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal or revision by the Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law." There is, thus, no ground to interfere and both the appeals are dismissed.