lipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/post-facto-amendment-of-gst-registration-madras-high-court-quashes-penalty-under-gst-as-there-was-no-tax-evasion/168231/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=GST%20Registration
By Yogitha S. Yogesh – On April 13, 2022 4:01 pm
The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) considering the writ petition quashed the penalty under GST as there was no evasion of tax by post facto amendment of GST Registration.
The petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari filed Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to release the vehicle along with its consignment within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.
The petitioner is a new start-up company and placed a purchase order for the supply of a specialized spray dryer with M/s. ABV Engineering, Ahmedabad, who had consigned the same to South Karumpattor, South Thamaraikulam, Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu with an invoice. The goods were accompanied by E-way Bill. As per the invoice, the name and address of the Consignee read as under. The vehicle along with the spray dryer was seized by the respondent on the ground that the address of the Consignee mentioned was not a place mentioned in the GST Registration of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that there was no intention to evade tax as the petitioner had generated an E-way bill by declaring the consignee as its additional place of business and hence there is no violation under Section 129 of the respective GST Enactments.
The Additional Government Pleader submitted that the registration profile of the petitioner reveals that the Director of the petitioner is concerned and also the Proprietor of Tvl. Pinnacle Biosciences, have an address in South Karumpattor, South Thamaraikulam, Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu -. It was submitted that the place of delivery of the consignment is the business place of Tvl. Pinnacle Biosciences, is also in the same trade, and thus, there is an attempt to evade tax.
Justice C S Saravanan held that 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. The Court was guided by the decision in M/S.Smart Roofing Private Limited, represented by its Authorized Signatory, N. Karthick vs. The State Tax Officer (Int), Adjudication-II, Madeira] in arriving at this conclusion.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE