The Madras High Court has declined to interfere with a Section 129 penalty order where the e-way bill generated by the supplier mentioned a delivery address that was not registered as the recipient’s principal place of business or additional place of business on the date of interception, holding that Section 129 provides for penalty not only for non-payment of taxes but also for contravention of the statute or rules. The ruling by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in WP No. 18625/2026 (M/s Universal Enterprises, decided 15.09.2026) observed that the purpose of the e-way bill is to ensure trackability of goods movement, and incorporating an undeclared address defeats that purpose.
The petitioner contended that taxes were paid and there was no intention to evade. The court noted that the address was subsequently registered as an additional place of business, but on the date of supply and interception it was not. The court also observed that while there was a case for the GST Department to take measures to provide access to details of the recipient’s additional places of business, the supplier should have verified the delivery address before generating the e-way bill and declined to raise it for an unregistered address. The petitioner was left free to initiate proceedings against the recipient for recovery of the penalty paid.
- 2026-juristway.com-2590-HC(Madras)-GST | High Court of Madras | WP No. 18625 of 2026 | 15.09.2026