In the present case, goods were detained by GST officer in transit, which were being delivered by supplier at an address not mentioned in GST Certificate of buyer. Post facto, an amendment was done by buyer in RC by including the said address in his RC. Demand and Penalty order quashed by High Court. 

Petitioner:

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of demand of tax and penalty u/s 129 of the GST Act.

The petitioner is a new start up company and is engaged in research and development. The petitioner placed purchase order for supply of a specialized spray dryer to supplier, who had consigned the same along with the invoice bearing No.197/21-22, dated 28.02.2022. The goods also accompanied with E-way Bill. 

The vehicle along with spray dryer were seized by the respondent on the ground that the address of the Consignee mentioned on invoice & e-way bill, was not a place mentioned in the GST Registration of the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has entered into a rental agreement with one of the Directors of the petitioner Company, who is running a Proprietary concern at the said premises and the above said premise has been taken on rent by the petitioner. Post facto the petitioner has also amended GST Registration by including the said address in its GST Registration.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no violation of Section 129 of the respective GST enactments as the transportation by the supplier from Gujarat not only accompanied tax invoice, but also E-way Bill showing sufferance of tax to the goods transported from Gujarat to the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable.

Revenue:

Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the registration profile of the petitioner reveals that one M.Adhi Visvanathan is the Director of the petitioner concern and also the Proprietor of a Firm, having same address. It is submitted that the place of delivery of the consignment is the business place of that prop. firm, who is also in the same trade and thus, there is an attempt to evade tax. It is further submitted that the attempt was to clear the goods to the said firm and therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered.

Held:

Both the petitioner and the respondent admit that as on date the above said address has been included in the petitioner's place of business in the GST Registration. Thus, 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.

Considering the above fact, I am inclined to quash the impugned order, as there is no attempt to evade tax. Incidentally, in W.P.(MD)No.5720 of 2022 [M/S. Smart Roofing Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer], an order came to be passed under a some what similar circumstances on 30.03.2022. There also, post facto GST Registration was amended and relief was therefore granted. The facts of the present case and the facts of the above said case are not different. Considering the same, I am inclined to allow this Writ Petition.

☑ Monthly | GSTR-11

GSTR-11 for the m/o Mar 2024 (Statement of inward supplies by persons having Unique Identification Number (UIN)).

☑ Annual | GSTR-4

GSTR-4 (Annual Return) for FY 2023-24 by Composite Taxpayer (Rule 62).

☑ Quarterly | QRMP

Last date for opt-in / opt-out QRMP Scheme for quarter Apr - June 2024 (Rule 61A)