9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 857 - Commissioner - GSTRelease of seized goods alongwith the vehicle - contravention of Rule 138 of CGST and HPGST Rules 2017 - minor error in the e-way bill in entering distance - typographical error - invocation of section 129 (1) of Acts as well - HELD THAT - It is revealed that due to a typographic error while generating E-way bill, the petitioner mentioned approx distance between Puducherry to Himachal Pradesh as 20 Kilometers instead of 2000 Kilometers. As a result, a validity of one day has been calculated by the E-way bill portal instead of twenty days and the E-way bill subsequently got expired on the very next day i.e on 08.09.2018. The consignment was intercepted on dated 15th Sep, 2018 and thereby a tax/penalty has been imposed under section 129 of HPGST/CGST Act, 2019 for contravention of Rule 138. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of SABITHA RIYAZ VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. 2018 (11) TMI 213 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein Hon'ble Kerala High Court directed the State GST officials to consider release of goods in view of the CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14th sep 2018 since the discrepancy in the E-way Bill was due to a typographical error. GST Council vide circular No 64/38/2018 dated 14th September, 2018 and State government vide circular No DT 13.03.2019 effective w.e.f 14.09.2018, in para 5 provides that in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated in case of minor mistakes like Error in the pin-code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill or Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct. The mistake in entering distance in E-way bill is a typographic error and may be treated as a minor one. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is accepted and the order of the Assistant Commissioner State Taxes Excise-Cum proper officer Baddi Circle-II is set aside.
Issues Involved:
1. Typographical error in e-way bill. 2. Validity of e-way bill. 3. Imposition of tax and penalty under Section 129 of CGST/HPGST Act. 4. Applicability of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST. 5. Judicial precedents and legal provisions. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Typographical Error in E-Way Bill: The appellant argued that the error in the e-way bill, which mentioned the distance as 20 kilometers instead of 2000 kilometers, was merely a typographical mistake. This error resulted in the e-way bill's validity being calculated for one day instead of the required twenty days. The appellant contended that this mistake was unintentional and should be considered minor. 2. Validity of E-Way Bill: The consignment was intercepted on 15th September 2018, with the e-way bill having expired on 8th September 2018. The appellant maintained that despite the expired e-way bill, all other documents were in order and compliant with the GST rules. The appellant cited that the typographical error led to the e-way bill's premature expiration, which was beyond their control to rectify at the time of interception. 3. Imposition of Tax and Penalty under Section 129 of CGST/HPGST Act: The Assistant Commissioner (AC) imposed a tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/HPGST Act, arguing that the expired e-way bill was a violation of Rule 138. The appellant contested this imposition, arguing that the error was minor and did not warrant such a penalty. The appellant had deposited the tax and penalty under protest to release the goods. 4. Applicability of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST: The appellant referenced CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, which states that minor errors in e-way bills, such as typographical mistakes, should not lead to the initiation of proceedings under Section 129. The appellant argued that their case fell within the scope of this circular, which should mitigate the penalty imposed. 5. Judicial Precedents and Legal Provisions: The appellant cited the Kerala High Court judgment in SABITHA RIYAZ VS THE UNION OF INDIA, which held that typographical errors in e-way bills should be treated as minor mistakes. The Kerala High Court directed that such errors should not result in the detention of goods if other documents are in order. The appellant argued that their case was similar and should be treated accordingly. Judgment: The Appellate Authority accepted the appellant's arguments, recognizing the typographical error as a minor mistake. The authority referenced the CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST and the Kerala High Court judgment, concluding that the imposition of tax and penalty under Section 129 was not warranted. The authority set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed the refund of the deposited amount of ?1,54,798/- (IGST ?77,399/- + penalty ?77,399/-). Instead, a nominal penalty of ?500/- under SGST and ?500/- under CGST was imposed in accordance with the relevant circulars.
|
