2025 (4) TMI 561 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty - e-way bill Invoice number was wrongly mentioned as 3096 in place of 3063 - HELD THAT - The record shows that the goods were in transit when the same were intercepted and discrepancy in e-way bill was pointed out as tax invoice number 3096 was mentioned in place of 3063 however no other discrepancy whatsoever was pointed out with regard to quality quantity or difference of items as mentioned in the accompanying documents. On perusal of circular no. 64/38/2018 - dated 14.9.2018 it shows that if there is any error in one or two digits the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act should not be initiated. Conclusion - If there is any error in one or two digits the proceedings under Section 129 of the Act should not be initiated. The entire proceedings itself are bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law - Petition allowed.

Summary

In the case before the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner challenged orders dated 16.4.2022 and 19.12.2021 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Muzaffar Nagar, and respondent no. 2 in FORM GST MOV-09. The petitioner, a registered firm with GSTIN 05ACTPS5795B1Z2, argued that the penalty imposed due to an error in the e-way bill was unjustified. The error involved a discrepancy in the invoice number, where "3096" was mentioned instead of "3063." The petitioner's counsel cited Circular No. 64/38/2018, clause 5(d), which states that proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act should not be initiated for minor errors such as a one or two-digit mistake in document numbers.The court noted that no other discrepancies were found regarding the goods' quality, quantity, or description. The circulars, as binding on authorities, were supported by precedents from the Apex Court, notably Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s Ratan Melting & Wire Industries and Commissioner of Central Tax Vs. M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited. Consequently, the court held that the proceedings were "not sustainable in the eyes of law," quashed the impugned orders, and directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded in accordance with the law.