Goods Unloaded at Different Location Instead of Destination Mentioned in E-way bill: Madras HC allows Hearing to Contest Penalty u/s 129 [Read Order]
The high court clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the case and that the respondent would consider the petitioner’s submissions in accordance with the law
Madras High court-Madras HC-Contest Penalty-E-way bill-Taxscan
Madras High court-Madras HC-Contest Penalty-E-way bill-Taxscan
In the matter of goods unloaded at different locations instead of the destination mentioned in the E-way bill and tax invoice, the Madras High court granted hearing opportunity as requested by the Petitioner challenging the Penalty of Rs. 6.1 Lakh under Section 129(1)(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act ( GST Act ), 2017.
Inland World Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, represented by its Authorised Signatory S.K.Ravichandran filed the writ petition challenging the GST penalty.
Mr.C.Baktha Siromoni, the petitioner’s counsel, argued that at the time of interception, the driver had presented the necessary invoices and E-way bills for the goods, which were inspected in compliance with Section 68(3) of the GST Act.
Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance
The goods were found to be dispatched from Havells India, Rajasthan, to Gayathri Consultants in Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu. However, instead of unloading at the intended destination, the goods were found to be unloaded at Sembiam Road, Kathirvedu.
The driver was unable to produce documents for the movement of the goods from Gayathri Consultants to Kathirvedu, and no tax invoices, delivery challans, or E-way bills were available for the diverted route.
The petitioner appeared before the adjudicating officer on October 29, 2024, requesting time to file objections and a personal hearing on November 4, 2024.
Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance
The petitioner submitted that the goods were loaded with goods belonging to Ashok Leyland, and the Havells India goods were unloaded at Kathirvedu temporarily to facilitate the unloading of Ashok Leyland goods. However, the adjudicating officer did not accept this explanation, and the penalty order was issued.
It was also claimed that no personal hearing was granted despite the request made on November 4, 2024. In response, the respondent's counsel agreed to provide a personal hearing and pass fresh orders based on the petitioner’s submissions.
In these instances, the respondent’s counsel submitted that they provide personal hearing and pass orders accordingly.
Boost Your Earning Potential: Upskill in Tax and Finance
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq scheduled the date and time for the personal hearing. The bench directed the petitioner to appear for the personal hearing on December 18, 2024, at 11:00 AM.
The high court clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the case and that the respondent would consider the petitioner’s submissions in accordance with the law.
Additionally, the petitioner was allowed to request provisional release of the goods, which would be considered by the appropriate authority.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
