2022 (4) TMI 821 - HC - GST

Seeking release of detained goods alongwith the truck - truck load of cements - violation in the invoice that the full address of the buyer has not been mentioned - HELD THAT - Since the notice dated 07.03.2022 is having the operative portion of a direction to pay the amount, the petitioner was triggered to file this writ petition challenging the same. Even though the petitioner's counsel says or indicates that, only a sum of ₹ 5,000/- will be normally imposed, that kind of arrangement is not agreeable for the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent as according to him, this violation is a recurring one from the petitioner, therefore a larger fine has to be imposed. The petitioner on payment of 25% of the demand of the penalty in each of the case, the goods and vehicles in question detained by the respondent shall be released. Such payment of 25% of the penalty is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to be urged or raised before the Appellate Authority against the final order now has been passed on 11.03.2022 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of invoice details leading to detention of goods and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order by the respondent Revenue Squad dated 07.03.2022, which detained the petitioner's vehicle carrying cement due to a violation in the invoice regarding the buyer's address. The respondent alleged that the petitioner's Coimbatore branch was non-functional, adding to the violations. The notice issued directed the petitioner to pay a penalty within three days, failing which action would be taken under the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the absence of the buyer's full address was not a significant violation warranting such detention and penalties.

The petitioner challenged the notice/order dated 07.03.2022, which was followed by a final order dated 11.03.2022 imposing fines of ?96,000 and ?1,17,000 in two separate writ petitions. The respondent contended that the violations were not new and that the Coimbatore branch showed no buying or stocking activities. The final order dated 11.03.2022 was not challenged by the petitioner, who only contested the initial notice. The court noted the final order was yet to be challenged before the Appellate Authority.

Considering both parties' submissions, the court disposed of the writ petition by ordering the petitioner to pay 25% of the penalty demand in each case for the release of the detained goods and vehicles. This payment was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the final order dated 11.03.2022 before the Appellate Authority. Failure to pay the 25% penalty would result in non-release of the goods. The court allowed the respondent to proceed with recovering the remaining penalty amount if the petitioner did not challenge the final order within three months of the goods' release. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.