Athiyan Exports Vs State Tax Officer (Adjudication and Legal) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that the export incentive cannot be denied for technical and venial breach of provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act]. Accordingly, petition allowed.
Facts- The petitioner is an exporter of coir product and pursuant to the export order from the buyer abroad, they had proposed to export the product to Sapphire Premium (Shenzhen) Technology Co. Ltd., China. Notably, the petitioner was required to generate E-Invoice before transporting the goods from the place of manufacturing for the product exported. However, without generating E-Invoice, the goods were transported on the strength of Commercial invoice, dated 02.05.2025.
On the strength of the Commercial invoice, two of the consignments reached the port, without being detected all the defects in the export procedure adopted by the petitioner, i.e., transportation of the goods without generating E-Way Bill and E-Invoice. However, the consignment covered by the transport vehicle in TN-88-C-2155 was intercepted by the respondents in terms of Section 129 of the respective GST enactments and therefore, notice was issued to the petitioner in Form GST MOV -07 dated 07.05.2025. Since the petitioner was in a hurry to have the consignment exported, the petitioner appears to have generated a supplementary invoice after the seizure was made.
