14.04.2022- Subsequent inclusion of the address in the registration does not amount to detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Madras High Court.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide its order dated 04th April 2022 in the matter of Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. Versus State Tax Officer-i, Tirunelveli in Writ Petition (MD) No.4958 of 2022 And W.M.P.(MD)No.4073 of 2022 held that post facto inclusion of address in the GST registration, which was mentioned in the invoice as well as in the E-Way Bill, does not amount to detention under Section 129 of the Act.

The Petitioner preferred the writ petition challenging the impugned order demanding tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 12,46,678/- under Section 129 of the GST Act.

Facts: –

  • The petitioner is new start up company is engaged in research and development of Alage and its utilization.
  • The petitioner on 10.2021 placed an order with M/s.ABV Engineering, Ahmedabad, for supply of specialized spray dryer and parts thereof. The supplier sent the consignment of the goods accompanied with the invoice and E-Way Bill mentioning the name and address of the Consignee as ‘Algae Labs Private Limited, 5/150, South Karumpattor, South Thamaraikulam, Kanyakumari, Tamilnadu – 629708’.
  • The Vehicle with goods were seized by the respondent on the ground that the address of the Consignee mentioned is not matching with the address mentioned in the GST registration of the Petitioner.

Petitioner’s Contentions

  • The said premise whose address is mentioned on the invoice, has been taken on rent by the petitioner from one of the Directors of the petitioner company, who is running proprietary concern at the said premise however post facto it has been included in the GST registration of the petitioner.
  • There is no violation of Section 129 as the goods were accompanied with all relevant documents including invoice and E-way bill.
  • Thereafter the petitioner referring to the circular 10/2019 Q1/17253/2019, dated 31.05.2019, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable.

On the other hand, it was submitted on the behalf of the respondent that there is an attempt to evade tax as the place of delivery of consignment is in the name of one of the Director’s of the petitioner company, which is a business place of Tvl. Pinnacle Biosciences.  Further the circular relied upon by the petitioner has no relevance to the case, Thus the impugned order cannot be interfered.

Held: –

  • The Hon’ble High Court after considering the submissions from the both sides that it has not been disputed from both, the petitioner and the respondent, that the said address has now been added to the GST registration of the petitioner. Thus, there is a post facto inclusion of the address mentioned in the invoice and E-way bill.
  • The Hon’ble High Court with the above findings and referring to the decision in M/S. Smart Roofing Private Limited Vs. The State Tax Officer (Int), Adjudication-II, Madeira wherein relief was granted to the assessee in case of post facto amendment in GST registration, held that there is no attempt to evade tax and allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.

For more Judgements like this, Subscribe TAXO today

Subscribe

to our newsletter. Please enter your email and press submit.

Menu