2024 (12) TMI 1087 - HC - GST

Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting appeal remedy under Section 107 of GST enactment - Levy of penalty u/s 129 (1)(a) of the respective GST enactment - discrepancy in consignment details - HELD THAT - The GST registration as per the extract from the GST portal and the invoice raised by the consignor / seller namely M/s.M.R.Industrial Services are one and the same. The e-Way Bill also indicates the same except that the name of the consignee has been given as that of the petitioner. This Court has in several cases come to the rescue of the assessee where errors are marginal and were not major or motivated with a view to evade tax. Since the address of the consignee namely M/s.Athish Engineering Systems as in the GST Registration certificate and the address in the tax invoice dated 25.02.2022 raised on the petitioner by the seller / consignor namely M/s.M.R.Industrial Services are one and the same minor discrepancy in the name can be condoned. However this would require a proper determination by the respondent although the petitioner has paid the penalty amount and has taken delivery of the consignment that was detained by the respondent. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits. The penalty paid by the petitioner with a view to take delivery of the detained consignments may be refunded and shall be subject to the final outcome of the order that may be passed - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 129 (1)(a) of GST enactment for a discrepancy in consignment details. Maintainability of writ petition without exhausting appeal remedy under Section 107 of GST enactment.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in construction activities, faced a penalty of Rs. 5,02,956 under Section 129 (1)(a) of GST enactment due to a discrepancy in consignment details. The consignor mistakenly listed the petitioner as the consignee instead of the actual contractor, M/s.Athish Engineering Systems. Despite the petitioner's responses to notices, the penalty was imposed. The respondent argued that the penalty was paid, and the consignment was released, making the issue final under Section 129 (5) of GST enactment.

The respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner should have pursued remedy under Section 107 by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Failure to do so rendered the writ petition liable for dismissal. However, the court examined documents, including GST registration of M/s.Athish Engineering Systems, and found that the consignor's invoice and GST registration matched, with a minor discrepancy in the consignee's name.

The court, citing previous cases, acknowledged minor errors that were not tax evasion attempts. Despite the petitioner paying the penalty and receiving the detained consignment, the court set aside the impugned order. The case was remitted back to the respondent for fresh orders, with a directive to refund the penalty paid by the petitioner. The refund was subject to the final outcome of the new order. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and a related application was closed.