High Court Imposes 25% Penalty Of Demand For Non-mentioning Of Buyer’s Complete Address in Tax Invoice

In the case of RKS Agencies Vs State Tax Officer, the fault of petitioner is that petitioner’s full address is not mentioned on tax invoice. So, the department has issued notice and raised demand. The department has also seized goods and vehicles. When the petitioner go to the Madras High Court against the said demand order, please read what High Court has said:

12.) I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

13.) Now admittedly there has been an order dated 11.03.2022 which is a final order which is yet to be challenged before the Appellate Authority by the petitioner.

14.) In the meanwhile, since the notice dated 07.03.2022 is having the operative portion of a direction to pay the amount, the petitioner was triggered to file this writ petition challenging the same.

15.) It is also the contention of the petitioner counsel that, the two truck load of cements which were bought by the petitioner now been detained, by virtue of that, the petitioner’s interest is greatly prejudiced. Therefore, whatever the usual penalty imposed against such alleged violation can be imposed as a condition precedent to release the goods, however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to urge before the Appellate Authority against such an order now passed dated 11.03.2022.

16.) The said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is appealing to this Court.

17.) Even though the petitioner’s counsel says or indicates that, only a sum of Rs.5,000/- will be normally imposed, that kind of arrangement is not agreeable for the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent as according to him, this violation is a recurring one from the petitioner, therefore a larger fine has to be imposed.

18.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to balance the interest of both sides, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

(i) That the petitioner on payment of 25% of the demand of the penalty in each of the case, the goods and vehicles in question detained by the respondent shall be released. Such payment of 25% of the penalty is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to be urged or raised before the Appellate Authority against the final order now has been passed on 11.03.2022 if he is advised to do so.

(ii) It is made clear that, if he has not paid the 25% of the demand of penalty, the goods and vehicles in question need not be released.

(iii) It is further made clear that, after paying the 25% penalty as indicated above and the goods and vehicles are released, against which, subsequently if the petitioner has not chosen to assail the order of final penalty dated 11.03.2022, after lapse of 3 months period from the date of release of the goods, it is open to the respondent to proceed, in accordance with law, the 11.03.2022 order for recovering the remaining amount of the penalty.

19.) With these observations and directions, these Writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Scroll to Top