Penalty for Alleged Typographical Error in GSTIN of Transit Goods: Madras HC directs Appeal before Appellate Authority [Read Order]

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently directed appeal before the appellate authority in a case impugning penalty imposed by the Goods and Service Tax (GST) officials for allegedly having a typographical error in the Goods andServices Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) during the transit of goods.

The writ petition was filed by B. Perumal, challenging a penalty order dated February 3, 2026 issued by the respondent Deputy State Tax Officer (Intelligence) seeking quashal of the impugned order and refund of the penalty amount along with interest that had already been paid.

The GST authorities allegedly initiated proceedings under Section 129(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which empowers authorities to detain goods and levy penalty in cases of discrepancies during transportation and imposed penalty, which was subsequently paid by the petitioner.

The petitioner, represented by M.Rajasekaran maintained that there was no substantive discrepancy in the documents accompanying the goods in transit, except for an alleged typographical error within the GSTIN number.

Additional Government Pleader R.Suresh Kumar drew the attention of the Court to Section 129(5) of the Act, which states that

“129(5) On payment of the amount referred to in sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in subsection (3) shall be deemed to be concluded.”

The Bench of Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that since the petitioner had already paid the penalty amount, the proceedings stood concluded in terms of Section 129(5).

However, the Court did note that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner is entitled to approach the appellate authority and challenge the penalty order on both, the grounds of fact and law.

Justice Chakravarthy further clarified that the contention of the petitioner that the discrepancy was merely due to a typographical error in the GSTIN number could also be raised before the appellate authority, which shall consider the matter on its own merits in accordance with law.

The High Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Since the entire penalty amount had already been paid, the Court also clarified that no further pre-deposit would be required for maintaining the appeal.

The matter was accordingly disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates