Merely for wrong PIN code of consignor/ consignee goods can’t be seized u/s 129(3)

If address of consignor or consignee is correct, merely for wrong PIN code, the proceedings u/s 129 can not be initiated – High Court

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court quashed order under section 129(3) of GST Act holding that when goods in question was accompanied with all proper and prescribed documents mere wrong mentioning of PIN code can not be said to have an intent to evade the payment of tax

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4887 (2025) (11) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the appellate order and demand passed by GST Additional Commissioner along with order under section 129(3) of GST Act 2017.

It was submitted that goods in question were in transit from one State to another which were duly accompanied with tax invoice, e-way bill and R.R. The goods in question were bill to ship to transaction. However, the goods was intercepted by GST Authorities in Uttar Pradesh and was seized on the premise that in the tax invoice PIN code of ship to party was wrongly mentioned and no other discrepancy was found in any other documents.

It was submitted that reply was submitted to the GST authorities but being not satisfied with the same, the proceedings under Section 129(3) were initiated and the order was passed by which penalty was imposed.

It was also submitted that as the goods were urgently required, therefore, on deposit of penalty, the goods were released, thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal, which was also dismissed without considering the material on record.

It was contended that merely on the ground of technical error, one digit of PIN code had wrongly been mentioned, the proceedings u/s 129(3) ought not to have been initiated against the petitioner.

In support of his contentions, the Petitioner relied upon the Circular issued by CBIC, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue, Govt. of India, wherein it is clearly mentioned that if there is an error in PIN code but the address of consignor and consignee is correct, then the proceeding ought not to have been initiated under Section 129 of the Act. He submitted that in the case in hand, circular is binding upon the authorities, but the goods were not only seized but penalty was also imposed. He submits that there was no intention to avoid the payment of tax.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that it was not in dispute that the goods in question were moving from One State to other State via UP and the transaction in question was bill to ship to but on the tax invoice PIN code in the address of ship to party was wrongly mentioned though the address was correct. But on the said premise, the goods in question were seized, whereas in view of the circular, the goods were not liable to be seized.

The Hon’ble High Court noted that as per the said Circular, if the address of consignor or consignee is correct and PIN code has wrongly been mentioned, the proceedings under Section 129 may not be initiated.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that Apex Court had held that circulars issued by the higher authorities are binding upon the subordinate authorities. Hence, the initiation of present proceedings, itself, is bad and against the intent of statute.  Further, the record showed that no other discrepancy, has been pointed out by any of the respondent authorities. The goods in question was accompanied with all proper and prescribed documents.

The Hon’ble High Court held that once the goods in question were accompanied with all proper document and no discrepancy has been pointed out except wrong mentioning of PIN code and further there was no intent to evade the payment of tax, the proceedings were not justified in the eyes of law.

In the results, the writ petition was allowed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• No changes propsoed in Section 87A Rebate for AY 2027-28 (FY 2026-27) in Budget-2026-27
• No changes in Income Tax slabs or rates for individuals/HUFs for AY 2027-28. Budget 2026-27
• Union Budget 2026-27 watch Live – Highlights of direct and indirect tax proposals
• Supervisory with wages exceeding Rs. 18000 p.m. not a worker under Code on Wages 2019
• ITAT has power to stay order appealed, even in absence of any subsisting tax demand