BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND W.M.P.(MD)No.2688 of 2025 M/s.Century Apparels Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Mr.Reuben Swamidoss, 36, Landans Road, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Petitioner Vs.

Deputy State Tax Officer(Intelligence), Roving Squad II, Madurai. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned order of the respondent passed in Form GST MOV-09 in O.R.No.767/2024-2025 MADURAI RS-II dated 01.09.2024 and quash the same and issue any other writ.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Murali For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader.

* * *

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing of garments. The head office is located in Chennai and the manufacturing unit is in Tirupur. On 01.09.2024, the petition- mentioned goods were moved from Tirupur to Tuticorin for export to Ireland. The vehicle transporting the goods was detained at Valayankulam Toll Plaza and inspected. The driver of the vehicle informed the Inspector-official that the goods are being transported from Tirupur. However in the e-way bill, it was mentioned that the goods were being transported from Chennai. On that ground, penalty to the tune of 200% of the tax value has been levied under Section 129(1) (a) of the CGST Act. The writ petitioner paid the same under protest. Thereafter, the goods were released. Challenging the penalty order, this writ petition has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that in view of Section 129(5) of the TNGST Act, 2017, the proceedings should be taken as having concluded on account of the payment of penalty by the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner has to agitate the issue only before the appellate authority. In this regard, he relied on the decision reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 3376 (Thiruchy Royal Steels, Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.Jahir Hussain Mohamed Riyaz Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer and Another). He pointed out that the decision of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the decision reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 8193 (Tiruchy Royal Steels Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer, Salem)

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

6.The impugned order levying penalty rests on the following reason:-

“Goods moved to Tirupur to Tuticorin but the consignor had raised e-way bill for Chennai to Tuticorin. Hence, it is found that goods moved without e-way bill. The consignor mentioned the DC number, instead of e-invoice Number in e-way bill. Hence, penalty levied under Section 129(1)(a) of TNGST Act, 2017.”

Section 129(1) of TNGST Act 2017 reads as follows:

Section 129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,-

[(a) on payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty;

Section 129(1) provides for levy of penalty if goods have been transported