2022 (4) TMI 466 - HC - GST

GST Demand Quashed: Address Discrepancy Not Valid Reason for Penalty Under Section 129 When Registration Later Amended

Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-I, Tirunelveli

The HC quashed the tax and penalty demand under GST Section 129 that arose from an address discrepancy in consignment delivery. The petitioner, a research ... Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - place of supply was not included in the GST registration - seizure on the ground that the address of the Consignee mentioned as No.5/150, South Karumpattor, South Thamaraikulam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu – 629708, was not a place mentioned in the GST Registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Both the petitioner and the respondent admit that as on date the above said address has been included in the petitioner's place of business in the GST Registration. Thus, there is a post facto inclusion of the address, which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill. There is no attempt to evade tax - petition 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.