Vehicle Intercepted for Non-Possession of E-Invoice: Madras HC Holds Timely Manual Appeal Valid, Directs Appellate Authority to Decide with Additional Evidence [Read Order]
The court, noting that the manual appeal was filed within time, held that the taxpayer could not be faulted for time-barred filing of e-appeal
Madras High Court, Vehicle Intercepted for Non-Possession
Madras High Court, Vehicle Intercepted for Non-Possession
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the rejection of a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appeal filed in a case relating to the interception of a vehicle for non-possession of an e-invoice.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan, while hearing the writ petition, held that since the assessee had filed a manual appeal within the prescribed time, the same could not be treated as belated merely because the e-filing was done subsequently.
The petitioner, Fabro Gaarden’s vehicle was intercepted on 4 December 2023 by the State Tax Officer, for non-possession of an e-invoice. To secure release of the goods and vehicle, the petitioner paid a penalty of ₹5,15,412 under protest.
An adverse order was later passed on 13 October 2024, which the petitioner sought to challenge. Owing to the unavailability of the web copy of the order, the petitioner filed a manual appeal before the Appellate Authority on 4 January 2025, producing proof of acknowledgment.
After receiving the web copy, another appeal was filed electronically on 21 July 2025, which was rejected as time-barred. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The court, noting that the manual appeal was filed within time, held that the taxpayer could not be faulted. The rejection order was accordingly set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority with directions to number the appeal and decide it on merits.
The bench also allowed the petitioner to produce the e-invoice, which was available but not carried by the driver at the time of interception.
The petitioner relied on the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Kumar Cargo Solution v. State of U.P., 2024, where relief was granted in similar circumstances.
The High Court directed the appellate authority to consider the additional material and dispose of the appeal within three months in accordance with law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
