*Non-Mentioning of Full Address of Buyer on Invoice: Madras HC orders to release Goods and Vehicles on Payment of 25% of Penalty Imposed [Read Order]-TAXSCAN

Read More: https://www.taxscan.in/non-mentioning-of-full-address-of-buyer-on-invoice-madras-hc-orders-to-release-goods-and-vehicles-on-payment-of-25-of-penalty-imposed/168134/

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/non-mentioning-of-full-address-of-buyer-on-invoice-madras-hc-orders-to-release-goods-and-vehicles-on-payment-of-25-of-penalty-imposed/168134/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Madras%20HC


By Rasheela Basheer – On April 13, 2022 11:42 am

Buyer - Invoice - Madras Hc - Goods - Vehicles - Payment - Penalty - taxscan

The Madras High Court while ordering to release the goods and vehicles detained on payment of 25 % of the penalty imposed, held that as the alleged violation, albeit being small, is recurring,the Petitioner can still agitate the penalty before the appellate authority.

The petitioner purchased goods called cement from Andhra Pradesh. Whn the goods were transported, the vehicle was intercepted by the Revenue Squad and they found that there is a violation in the invoice that the full address of the buyer has not been mentioned. Accordingly, the Revenue held that the petitioner shall pay the penalty imposed against the petitioner within three days, failing which, action would be taken under Section 130 of the Center/State Goods and Services Tax Act.

The petitioner submitted that the absence of the full address of the buyer is not such a big offence or violation, for which, the goods in question cannot be detained by the Revenue.

Justice R. Suresh Kumar observed that the Branch office of the petitioner located at Coimbatoreis a non-functional office, where, on inspection, it was found by the Revenue that, no such activities of buying or stocking anything taken place.

“Therefore, cumulatively considering all these, such a fine has been imposed through the order dated 11.03.2022 and that order since is the final order, it is staring on the petitioner, however, the petitioner has only challenged the present communication dated 07.03.2022 which is only a notice, even though in the operative portion of the said notice, which is impugned herein, it has been stated that, the amount shall be paid within three days,” the Court said.

Releasing the goods and vehicles subject to condition to pay 25% penalty, the Court held that“Even though the petitioner’s counsel says or indicates that, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- will be normally imposed, that kind of arrangement is not agreeable for the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent as according to him, this violation is a recurring one from the petitioner, therefore a larger fine has to be imposed.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s