Jindal Pipes Limited Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Int) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the imposition of penalty for the minor discrepancy in the variance in the address in the Tax Invoices and the E-Way Bill would not justify the penalty under Section 129(5) of CGST Act.
Facts- The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order dated 05.09.2023, whereby, the penalty of Rs.8,74,036/- was imposed on the consignment carried in conveyance bearing No.KA01AM5532. The supplier from Bellari District has supplied the consignment of steel pipes to Tuticorin, namely H.V.Cargo Logistics. The goods that were carried in the aforesaid conveyance which accompanied Tax Invoices as also E-Way Bill. However, there was a discrepancy between the PIN code of the petitioner in the Tax Invoices and in the E-Way Bill.
Conclusion- This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be mulcted with unjust penalty due to a minor discrepancy in the PIN code in the GST Registration and the Tax Invoices is to be construed as a minor violation of the provisions of respective GST enactments.
Held that the imposition of penalty for technical venial breach of the provisions or the minor discrepancy in the variance in the address in the Tax Invoices and the E-Way Bill would not justify the penalty under Section 129(5) of the respective GST enactments. Although the petitioner has come long after the impugned order was passed, the Court is of the view that the philosophy under the respective GST enactments is not to levy unjust tax and burden on assessee, who is otherwise regular in paying tax and complies with the law.
