Goods Released Upon 25% Penalty Payment for Invoice Address Discrepancies While Appeal Rights Preserved

The HC disposed of the writ petition challenging detention of goods and penalty imposition for invoice violations related to buyer's address discrepancies. The court ordered release of goods upon payment of 25% of the penalty amounts (Rs. 96,000 and Rs. 1,17,000) in two separate cases, without prejudice to petitioner's right to appeal the final order. The petitioner was permitted to challenge the final detention order before the Appellate Authority within three months of goods release. If no appeal was filed, respondents could recover the remaining penalty. The court noted that petitioner had only challenged the initial notice, not the subsequent final order.

---

---

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 Rs. 96,000 and Rs. 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.

---