Writ interference against GST penalty refused where goods did not match invoice and e-way bill, and statutory appeal was available.

A material mismatch between the goods transported and the accompanying invoice and e-way bill justified refusal of writ interference against the penalty order under the TNGST Act, 2017. The Court found that the discrepancy in transport documents was treated as an irregularity, and the petitioner had not produced sufficient records to substantiate the explanation offered. It also noted that an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 107 was available, which weighed against exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty order passed under Section 129(3) of the TNGST Act, 2017 called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The petitioner had generated an e-way bill and invoice for three items, but at the time of inspection the goods loaded in the vehicle did not correspond with the documentation. The discrepancy was treated as an irregularity in the transport documents, and the petitioner did not place sufficient records before the Authority to substantiate the explanation offered. The availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017 also weighed against interference.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not liable to be interfered with and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: In the presence of a material mismatch between the goods transported and the accompanying invoice and e-way bill, and where the record is insufficient to displace the finding of irregularity, writ interference is not warranted, particularly when an efficacious statutory appeal is available.

---