https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791812 In a GST confiscation dispute, the Madras HC noted that goods were stored in a godown not shown as an additional place of business at the time of inspection, but the registration was later amended and the goods remained available. On those facts, confiscation of the stock, redemption fine, and the resulting tax demand were found disproportionate. The Court treated the lapse as one of delayed or improper registration and compliance, for which a general penalty was the more appropriate consequence, with consequential redetermination only for goods already sold. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2026 08:40:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791812 In a GST confiscation dispute, the Madras HC noted that goods were stored in a godown not shown as an additional place of business at the time of inspection, but the registration was later amended and the goods remained available. On those facts, confiscation of the stock, redemption fine, and the resulting tax demand were found disproportionate. The Court treated the lapse as one of delayed or improper registration and compliance, for which a general penalty was the more appropriate consequence, with consequential redetermination only for goods already sold. Case-Laws GST Wed, 11 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791812