The Supreme Court upheld an interim stay on a penalty imposed for not mentioning the “biltee number” (consignment note number) on a tax invoice.
Issue
Is it legally valid for the GST department to impose a penalty on a taxpayer for not mentioning the “biltee number” on a tax invoice, especially when Rule 46 of the GST Rules, which details the mandatory contents of a tax invoice, does not appear to prescribe such a requirement?
Facts
- The GST department imposed a penalty on the assessee.
- The sole reason for this penalty was that the tax invoice accompanying the goods did not mention the “biltee number” (the transporter’s consignment note number).
- The assessee challenged this penalty by filing a writ petition in the High Court. Their argument was straightforward: Rule 46 of the GST Rules lists all the mandatory details that must be included in a tax invoice, and the biltee number is not one of them. Therefore, there was no violation of the law to justify a penalty.
- The High Court, finding this to be a strong and arguable point (prima facie case), passed an interim order. It stayed any coercive recovery of the penalty amount from the assessee, on the condition that the assessee deposit 20% of the disputed penalty amount.
- The revenue department was not satisfied with this interim stay and appealed the order to the Supreme Court.
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the assessee.
- It found “no reason to interfere” with the well-reasoned interim order that had been passed by the High Court.
- The revenue department’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed. This means the interim stay granted by the High Court remains in effect, and the case will now go back to the High Court for a final hearing on the main legal issue.
Key Takeways
- A Penalty Requires a Clear Violation of the Law: You can’t be penalized for not doing something that the law doesn’t actually require you to do. If Rule 46 does not mandate mentioning the biltee number on an invoice, a penalty for its absence is, on the face of it, invalid.
- Interim Relief is Granted for a Strong Case: When a taxpayer presents a strong, arguable case before a High Court, the court is likely to grant interim relief, such as a stay on recovery. This protects the taxpayer from coercive action while the complex legal question is being decided.
- The Supreme Court’s Reluctance to Interfere with Interim Orders: The Supreme Court generally does not interfere with discretionary, interim orders passed by High Courts unless there is a gross error of law, a question of national importance, or a serious miscarriage of justice.
- Conditional Stays are a Standard Practice: The High Court’s direction to deposit 20% of the disputed penalty is a common and standard practice in tax matters. It’s a way of balancing the interests of both the taxpayer (who gets protection from full recovery) and the revenue (which secures a portion of the disputed amount pending the final outcome).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Varun Enterprises
v.
Additional Commissioner Grade 2
J.B. PARDIWALA and MANMOHAN, JJ.
SLP (CIVIL) Diary No.4060 of 2025
SEPTEMBER 4, 2025
Pravir Choudhary, AOR, Reepak Kansal, Dushyant Sharma, Mrs. Geeta Rani, Ms. Ruhi Gupta, Abhishek Gaur, Ms. Shama Praveen, Ajay Kumar and Navdeep Garg, Advs. for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Aditya Pandey for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State – respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings under section 127, read with section 122 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the survey on the ground that the tax invoice does not bear the number of biltee. He further submits that there is no requirement under Rule 46 of the UPGST Rules to mention the biltee number on the tax invoice and therefore, taking adverse against the petitioner is illegal. He further submits that the impugned orders have been passed without application of mind on the basis of presumption, surmises, conjectures and assumptions.
3. The matter requires consideration.
4. Notice on behalf of all the respondents has been accepted by Chief Standing Counsel.
5. Standing Counsel prays for and is granted six weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
6. List immediately thereafter.
7. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders, provided the petitioner deposits 20% of the disputed penalty amount within a period of 15 days from today. It is made clear that amount already deposited by the petitioner towards the disputed amount shall be adjusted.
8. The amount so deposited shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.