JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred by the assessee - dealer under section 68 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") against order dated October 29, 2009 passed by the Value Added Tax Tribunal in Appeal (VAT) No. 495 of 2009, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law : (a) Whether the concerned officer is empowered under section 51 of the Act to impose the penalty and to detain the goods or the penalty imposed is beyond jurisdiction ? (b) Whether the penalty imposed is legally sustainable in the presence of each and every documents proving the transaction genuine ? (c) Whether the impugned order is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? On checking by the Excise and Taxation Officer (Mobile Wing), it was found that goods transported by the petitioner did not carry the required documents. It was further found that the goods receipts were not genuine. On show-cause notice being issued, the dealer failed to produce the books of account. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, a finding was recorded that there was an attempt to evade tax which attracted penalty under section 51(7) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty was imposed which has been upheld in the first appeal as well as in second appeal by the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Assessing Authority is as under : "... It is undisputed that the vehicle in question is owned by the consignor but instead of log book goods receipts of transport has been used. The dealer has failed to produce the record of the transport company. The detaining officer has placed on the file a GR No. 10262 used by the consignor for transporting goods covered by bill No. 1308 dated January 5, 2008 now bill No. 1503 and 1504 but the goods receipts used bear serial numbers 10577 and 10578. It indicates that there is no regularity in goods receipts. Inquiries conducted reveal that no such transport company exists at Dhuri. The purpose of goods receipt is to obtain receipt from the transporter/vehicle owner in lieu of handing over of goods for transportation of goods and consignee takes delivery of goods against the goods receipt but the usage of goods receipt where consignor himself owns a vehicle is nothing but a scheme devised not to maintain proper record of transaction. The purpose of goods receipt is to obtain receipt from the transporter/vehicle owner in lieu of handing over of goods for transportation of goods and consignee takes delivery of goods against the goods receipt but the usage of goods receipt where consignor himself owns a vehicle is nothing but a scheme devised not to maintain proper record of transaction. In this case, the dealer has used bill books which have only 25 bills and the bills are issued while dispatching the goods and the same are destroyed as the goods reach destination and no other record is maintained. ..." We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because the goods receipt was fake, inference of attempt to evade tax could not be drawn. We are unable to accept the submission. The finding recorded by the Assessing Authority, reproduced above, shows that not only the goods receipt was fake, the assessee also failed to produce books of account and the manner of issuing the bills also created suspicion about evasion of tax. The finding concurrently recorded by all the authorities is a finding of fact which has not been shown to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.