M/S. Greenslam International vs. The Deputy Tax Officer (Int)

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner possesses an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Deputy Commissioner, Madurai. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition. It granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority and raise all grounds previously presented in the writ petition. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without considering the period of limitation. The appellate authority is also directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law within one month thereafter. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Greenslam International, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Deputy Tax Officer (Int), Roving Squad, Theni, dated 04.10.2024. The petitioner contended that a clerical/typographical error occurred while generating an e-way bill, where the vehicle number was entered as TN-60-AY-9158 instead of TN-60-Y-9158. This error led to the detention of goods and the imposition of a penalty of 200% of the tax involved, which the petitioner deemed arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and direct the refund of Rs. 1,15,776/- with interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the penalty imposed by the respondent is arbitrary and illegal, considering the error was a clerical/typographical mistake in the e-way bill vehicle number, as per Circular 64/38/2018-GST? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the mistake in entering the vehicle number was purely clerical/typographical and inadvertent. They relied on Circular 64/38/2018-GST, which provides guidelines for dealing with such errors, suggesting that minor discrepancies should not lead to harsh penalties. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order and obtain a refund of the penalty amount. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, submitted that the petitioner has an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Madurai. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without availing this statutory remedy.