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"
- AAR Rules GST Applies to Small Packaged Shrimp Exports, Citing Retail Packaging Criteria
- Supreme Court to Decide if Leasehold Rights Transfer is Taxable Under GST Law
- Only Entity Named as Exporter in Customs Documents Can Claim Service Tax Refund: CESTAT
- CESTAT: Testing Services to Foreign Clients Qualify as ‘Export of Services’ under FTDR Act
- CESTAT Rules Dell India’s Services to Foreign Affiliates Qualify as Export, Allows Appeal
