Varun Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court is hearing a petition filed by Varun Enterprises challenging a penalty imposed under Sections 127 and 122 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The penalty stemmed from a survey that found the company’s tax invoices did not include a “biltee” number, which is a consignment note or transport receipt.
The petitioner, Varun Enterprises, argued that the penalty was illegal because the UPGST Rules, specifically Rule 46, do not mandate mentioning a biltee number on tax invoices. The company contended that the orders imposing the penalty were based on “presumption, surmises, conjectures, and assumptions” rather than a clear legal requirement.
In response, the court sought a counter-affidavit from the State, granting them six weeks to file their response. Pending the final decision, the court issued an interim order. It directed that no coercive action be taken against Varun Enterprises, provided the company deposits 20% of the disputed penalty amount within 15 days. This deposit is subject to the final outcome of the case. The court also clarified that any amount already deposited by the petitioner would be adjusted against this 20% requirement.
This case is significant as it addresses a point of contention regarding the specific details required on GST tax invoices. The court’s interim order grants a temporary reprieve to Varun Enterprises, but the final judgment will set a precedent on whether a “biltee” number is a mandatory part of a valid tax invoice under the current GST rules. There is currently no judicial precedent mentioned in the text of the order, as this is an ongoing matter. The court’s decision to grant a stay suggests that the petitioner’s argument has merit and requires further judicial consideration. The final ruling will clarify a critical compliance issue for businesses operating under the GST framework.
