Goods seizure over consignee address mismatch in GST e-way bill; later registration update led to seizure being quashed.

Seizure of goods and the conveyance was challenged on the ground that the consignee address stated in the tax invoice and e-way bill was not reflected as an additional place of business in the dealer's GST registration, leading the authorities to treat the movement as irregular. The HC held that the consignee address had since been included in the GST registration, evidencing a post facto regularisation consistent with the transaction documents, and that the record did not disclose any intention to evade tax. Consequently, the seizure was held unjustified and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to demand of tax and penalty under Section 129 of GST Acts based on address discrepancy in consignment delivery.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Challenge to Impugned Order: The petitioner challenged the demand of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the GST Acts due to an address discrepancy in the consignment delivery. The respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 12,46,678 based on the impugned order.

2. Facts of the Case: The petitioner, a new start-up engaged in research on Algae, placed an order for a specialized spray dryer. The consignment was seized by the respondent as the delivery address did not match the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner later amended the registration to include the delivery address.

3. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that there was no violation of Section 129 as the supplier had provided a tax invoice and E-way Bill showing tax payment for the goods transported. The petitioner also referenced Circular No.10/2019 to support their case.

4. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the delivery address belonged to a business associated with the petitioner, suggesting an attempt to evade tax. They opposed the petitioner's reliance on the circular and claimed that the impugned order was valid.

5. Court's Decision: After hearing both parties and reviewing the facts, the court noted that the petitioner had post-factly included the delivery address in their GST registration, as mentioned in the tax invoice and E-way Bill. The court referred to a similar case where relief was granted upon post-facto amendment of GST registration. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.

6. Precedent Consideration: The court cited a previous case with similar circumstances where relief was granted upon post-facto amendment of GST registration. This precedent supported the court's decision to allow the writ petition in the current case.

7. Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and closed the case without imposing any costs on either party.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's reasoning, and the final decision rendered by the court.

---