Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (7) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... indulging in any illegal activity when the tax invoice shows that the supplier is the petitioner s Corporate office in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State and that it was shipped to its Depot in Bongulur village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. Matter is remanded back to the file of respondent No.1, who shall hear both sides including the petitioner and thereafter, pass fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in SAME DEUTZFHR INDIA P. LTD. V. STATE OF TELANGANA - Since the petitioner is before this Court, let it appear before respondent No.1 on 25.07.2022 at 10.30 a.m., whereafter, respondent No.1 shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. - W.P.No. 26929 of 2022 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Central GST and State GST and equivalent amount of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central GST Act, 2017, and the Telangana GST Act, 2017. 5. Against the above order dated 26.11.2020, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1. After referring to the instructions contained in the Circular dated 14.09.2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, respondent No.1 took the view that there is gross mismatch of vehicle number, which situation is not covered by the Circular dated 14.09.2018. Therefore, respondent No.1 declined to interfere with the order dated 26.11.2020 and dismissed the appeal on 31.01.2022. 6 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no Tribunal has been constituted under Sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion that penalty of Rs.50,000/- is sufficient under Section 125, it should be noted that the mistake of gross mismatch of vehicle number in this case is not a minor mistake. Hence Section 125 is not applicable. With regard to the circular instructions of CBIC in Circular number 64/38/2018-GST, dt.14.09.2018, it may be noted that the circular lists out the following situations as minor mistakes. a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct. b) Error in the pin-code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PINM code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... certificate in the State of Telangana itself would disclose that its principal place of business is Hayathnagar and its additional place of business is at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. The 3rd respondent could have simply verified this fact in GST portal of the Government of India. 12. We do not accept the plea of the respondents that at the time of detention of the goods, the transporter/driver of vehicle did not tell them that at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, the petitioner has an additional place of business. No reasonable person when asked to pay GST and penalty of more than Rs.6 lakhs, would keep quiet and meekly pay up without bringing the said facts to the notice of the detaining authority. 13. The payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd State GST and penalty from the petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. from 05-03-2020 till date of payment to petitioner by the respondents. The 3rd respondent shall also pay costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the petitioner. 10. In view of the decision rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in SAME DEUTZFHR INDIA P. LTD. V. STATE OF TELANGANA (1 supra), we are of the view that respondent No.1 should reconsider the Order dated 31.01.2022. 11. Accordingly, order dated 31.01.2022, passed by respondent No.1, is set aside. Matter is remanded back to the file of respondent No.1, who shall hear both sides including the petitioner and thereafter, pass fresh order in accordance with law and in the light .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates