Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smart Roofing Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Appeal Number : W.P.(MD) No. 5720 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/03/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Smart Roofing Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 in Form GST Mov-9 seeking to impose penalty of Rs.2,50,387/- under CGST and SGST each, totally for a sum of Rs.5,00,774/- under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

2. The petitioner had consigned the goods from its main place of business at Chennai to its additional place of business, Sastha Bombalan Modern Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai. This was not the additional place of business, as per the original registration certificate obtained by the petitioner on 02.08.2018. However, in the E-way bill and the delivery Challan, the petitioner had declared the consignee as 130, Ring Road Chintamani, Madurai, though the consignment was meant for being discharged at its new place of business at Sastha Mombalan Modern Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 009. Under these circumstances, the consignment along with lorry was detained on 22.03.2022. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2022, to which the petitioner has replied on 25.03.2022, which has culminated in the impugned order dated 25.03.2022.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is no intention to evade tax as the petitioner has generated E-way bill by declaring the consignee as its additional place of business at No.130, Ring Road Chintamani, Madurai. It is further submitted that ex post facto, i.e., on the date of the petitioner has taken steps for amending the registration by including Sastha Mombalan Modern Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 009 also as the additional place of business. It is submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 129 (3) of the CGST and SGST is unwarranted under the circumstances.

HC deletes penalty under GST as there was no intention to evade tax

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

One Comment

  1. Smart Roofing Private Limited says:

    Thank You for your support Tax Guru. We are happy that our case has created a awareness for the GST Paying Entrepreneurs….

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031