Tvl. M.S.V. Lakshmi Traders Vs Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) (Madras High Court)
Date: February 26, 2024
Subject Matter
Turnover for applicability of E-invoices can be based on rectified annual return GSTR-9
Summary
The case involved a petitioner whose goods were detained for not generating e-invoices as mandated by Rule 48(4) of the GST rules. The petitioner contended that e-invoices were not obligatory for his business as his turnover was less than Rs.5 crore, and a rectification was made in the annual return filed through Form GSTR-9. The Madras High Court quashed the penalty order, affirming that the petitioner's turnover, correctly reported in GSTR-9, exempted him from the e-invoice mandate, rendering the penalty inappropriate. The Court also allowed the petitioner to seek a refund for the penalty paid.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The petitioner assails an order dated 12.05.2023 imposing penalty of Rs.1,44,212/-.
2. The petitioner states that cotton bales transported by him were intercepted on 12.05.2023 on the basis that he had not generated e-invoices as per Rule 48(4) of the applicable GST rules. Thereafter, it is stated that the goods were detained. The petitioner asserts that e-invoices are not mandatory unless the turnover is more than Rs.5 crore. By asserting that the petitioner’s turnover is less than Rs.5 crore, the present writ petition was filed.
3. Mrs. Vasantha Mala, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. She submits that the petitioner had wrongly indicated the turnover in the returns filed for 2018-19 and that this was subsequently rectified by filing the annual return in Form GSTR-9. She also submits that the petitioner should avail of the appellate remedy since an attachment order was also issued under Form MOV-09.
4. The admitted position is that the goods were released after the petitioner remitted the amount specified in the detention order. The petitioner asserts that the impugned order should not have been issued because his turnover is less than Rs.5 crore. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned order calls for interference. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to seek refund of the amount paid towards penalty. If such application is filed, the respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same expeditiously.
5. W.P.No.4728 of 2024 is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.