9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GH COURT] there was a typographical error in the e-way bill of 4 letters (HR 73). In the present case, instead of 5332 , 3552 was incorrectly entered into the e-way bill which clearly appears to be a typographical error. In certain cases where lapses by the dealers are major, it may be deemed that there is an intention to evade tax but not so in every case. Typically when the error is a minor error of the nature found in this particular case, the imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act is without jurisdiction and illegal in law. The impugned order set aside - petition allowed. - Hon ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf For the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Agrawal, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly. There is no allegation of any attempt by the petitioner for evasion of tax as the e-way bill, bilty and the tax invoice were matching and the consignee was also a registered dealer. 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that number 5332 was typed incorrectly as 3552. He has submitted that this is so obviously a typographical error and similar mistake has also been made in the impugned order that has been passed by the authority concerned. He further relies upon a coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. (113) 331 and also upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n error and will be covered under the circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 and 49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018, as the number mentioned in the e-way bill was UP-13T/6755 and the mistake is of only of HR-73 in place of U.P.-13T. 8. It is not in dispute that goods were being transported by the dealer through stock transfer from its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar to its sale depot at Agra. The bilty which is the document of the transporter mentions the vehicle number as HR-73/6755. From perusal of the e-way bill which has been brought on record, it is clear that the vehicle number has been mentioned as UP-13T/6755. It is apparently clear that mistake is as far as the registration of the vehicle in a particular State and in place of HR-73, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at the outset, the amount of costs as awarded by the High Court in this matter is rather on the lower side. Considering the overall conduct of the petitioner No.2 and the corresponding harassment faced by the writ petitioner we find it rather necessary to enhance the amount of costs. 7. Upon our having made these observations, learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to submit that the questions of law in this case, as regards the operation and effect of Section 129 of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and violation by the writ petitioner, may be kept open. The submissions sought to be made do not give rise to even a question of fact what to say of a question of law. As noticed hereinabove, on the facts of this case, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
