The Madras High Court while ordering to release the goods and vehicles detained on payment of 25 % of the penalty imposed, held that as the alleged violation, albeit being small, is recurring,the Petitioner can still agitate the penalty before the appellate authority. The petitioner purchased goods called cement from Andhra Pradesh. Whn the goods were transported, the vehicle was intercepted by the Revenue Squad and they found that there is a violation in the invoice that the full address of the buyer has not been mentioned. Accordingly, the Revenue held that the petitioner shall pay the penalty imposed against the petitioner within three days, failing which, action would be taken under Section 130 of the Center/State Goods and Services Tax Act.
Source Taxscan
Latest Posts in "India"
- GST on Dine-in, Takeaway, and Delivery App Orders: Rates, Compliance, and Reporting Differences
- Ensuring ITC Compliance: Mastering GSTR-2B Reconciliation and Audit Readiness for 2026
- India’s E-Invoicing Rules: Scope, Formats, Penalties, and Compliance Under the GST Framework
- Continuous Supply of Services Under GST: Legal Criteria Versus Commercial Practice Explained
- Tripura HC: ITC Cannot Be Denied to Bona Fide Purchaser for Supplier’s Tax Default
