M/S. JINDAL PIPES LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ANAND GARG

VERSUS

THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER (INT) , ROVING SQUAD-I, MADURAI vide  W. P. (MD) No. 17211 of 2024 And W. M. P. (MD)Nos. 14833 & 14834 of 2024 dated 25.07.2024

Citation: 2024 taxo.online 1623

The Madras High Court in this case ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the penalty for a minor discrepancy in the PIN code to be unjustified.  The Circular No.64/38/2018-GST was cited to support the argument that minor errors should not lead to penalties. The court emphasized that the GST enactments aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on taxpayers who generally comply with the law. The respondent must either refund the penalty or credit it towards future tax liabilities of the petitioner.

In this case, the petitioner is penalized for discrepancies between the PIN code in the Tax Invoices and the E-Way Bill. The penalty was imposed despite the petitioner providing both Tax Invoices and an E-Way Bill. It was argued that petitioner paid the penalty and challenges the penalty based on Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018. The Circular allows minor discrepancies, including errors in the PIN code, without initiating penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. Further, contended that the address in the E-Way Bill matches the GST Registration address, except for the minor PIN code discrepancy. The Respondent argues that the petitioner voluntarily paid the penalty, concluding the matter under Section 129(5) of the GST enactments.

To read more about this Judgement, subscribe today: https://taxo.online/product/taxo-pro/

Already a subscriber, Click to LOGIN & refer to the TAXO GST CASE LAWS

     Or

Call us:- +91 99101 67919, 99996 93426