2022 (4) TMI 704 - HC - GST

Refund alongwith the interest - generation of e-way bill in the name of petitioner was a bona fide mistake or not - Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Perusal of courier receipt/invoice which has been produced on record at page 19 shows that the consignor name was AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. and the consignee details were mentioned as SIDWIN FABRIC PVT. LTD. It is also important to note that in the same invoice, registration of truck number by which the consignment was to be transported was also mentioned as GJ-01-FT-7770. It is also relevant to note that the shipping date was mentioned as 20/06/2019. Now if this courier receipt is placed at juxtaposition with e-way bill which finds mention at page no. 20, the same would reveal that the transportation was to be carried out through vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-01-FT-7770 and the date was also mentioned as 20/06/2019. The same is evident from perusal of Part B of e-way bill system which finds mention at page no. 20. The entire details of the courier receipt were rightly mentioned in the e-way bill system however, the description of generator of e-way bill was wrongly mentioned and it was generated in the name of petitioner and, resultantly, all the orders impugned were passed while treating the present petitioner to be dispatcher of the goods and the statutory liability was fastened upon the petitioner by way of the order of imposition of tax as well as penalty. Apparently, courier receipt/invoice and eway bill, pertains to same transaction but the generation of e-way bill is in incorrect name. The mistake appears to be bona fide inasmuch as the detail of vehicle, dispatch date is same. The case in hand appears to be a case where e-way bill was generated wrongly in the name of petitioner on account of some clerical or typographical error, therefore, the impugned orders are quashed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders dated 24/06/2019 and 31/10/2019 passed by Sales Tax Officer and Joint Commissioner, State Tax cum Appellate Officer, State GST.
2. Request for refund of penalty amount imposed on petitioner.
3. Discrepancy in e-way bill details leading to penalty imposition.
4. Appeal against the penalty and tax imposition.
5. Delay in challenging the orders due to Covid-19 outbreak.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 24/06/2019 and 31/10/2019 passed by the Sales Tax Officer and Joint Commissioner, State Tax cum Appellate Officer, State GST, seeking a refund of the penalty amount of ?89,422 along with interest. The case involved the petitioner's inadvertent error in generating the e-way bill for the transportation of goods, leading to a penalty imposition under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

2. The petitioner, engaged in selling P & G recycled bags, mistakenly mentioned its details instead of the manufacturer's details in the e-way bill. Despite the petitioner's submission that it was a bona fide error, the authorities imposed the penalty. The petitioner deposited the penalty amount under compulsion and appealed the decision, but due to a delay in communication, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner argued that the mistake was typographical/clerical and cited a similar case where a clerical error was considered a minor mistake.

3. The respondents contended that the mistake was deliberate, given the experience and registration of both the seller and the purchaser in GST matters. They opposed the petitioner's reliance on a previous case, emphasizing the distinguishable facts. However, upon detailed examination of the courier receipt/invoice and the e-way bill, the court found that the mistake was indeed a clerical error. The court noted that all other details in the e-way bill matched the actual transaction, indicating a bona fide error in the generator's name.

4. Referring to a circular by the Ministry of Finance, the court agreed with a previous co-ordinate bench decision that minor discrepancies in e-way bill details should not lead to penalty imposition. Given the identical nature of the present case to the previous case, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to consider imposing a minor penalty, treating the error as a clerical mistake as per the circular.

5. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 24/06/2019 and 31/10/2019, and directed the authorities to consider imposing a minor penalty. The court acknowledged the delay in challenging the orders due to the Covid-19 outbreak and made no order as to costs.