Minor Breach of E-Invoice Rules in Export | HC Allows Lesser Penalty

Case Details: Athiyan Exports vs. State Tax Officer, Tirunelveli [2025] 176 taxmann.com 137 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Saravanan, J.
• A. Mohamed Ismail for the Petitioner.
• R. Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, acting as an exporter of coir products, transported goods meant for export on the strength of a commercial invoice without generating the mandatory e-invoice and e-way bill. The jurisdictional officer detained the goods and conveyance in transit on the ground that the petitioner had violated the conditions prescribed under section 129 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act. The matter was accordingly placed before the Madras High Court.

High Court Held

The Madras High Court held that the petitioner had breached section 129 by transporting goods without generating the required e-invoice and e-way bill. However, since the goods were indeed exported, the Court held that a lesser penalty would be justified for such a technical and venial breach. Referring to Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1969] 2 SCC 627, the Court directed that a sum of Rs. 25,000 be appropriated from the amount already paid by the petitioner.

List of Cases Referred to

• Pulkit Metals Private Ltd. v. State Tax Officer [W.P. No. 26145 of 2022, dated 29.11.2024] (para 11)
• Aqua Excel v. State Tax Officer (Adjudication) [2024] 167 taxmann.com 729/92 GSTL 276 (Madras) (para 11)
• Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa (1969) 2 SCC 627 (para 15).