Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Typographical error while generting e-way bill should not leads to penalty u/s 129(3).

Goods in Transit This appeal has been filed against the order passed by Asst. Commissioner State Taxes & Excise vide which an additional demand of Rs. 57,708/- was created against the appellant u/s. 129(1) of CGST Act.

The appellant is a manufacturer of corrugated boxes and import paper board outside the State. The vehicle was intercepted at Behral by the Proper Officer and driver was asked to produce documents related to goods loaded in the vehicle. The Proper Officer found that the Vehicle No. HP17B-1790 as mentioned in the invoice and E-way Bill does not match with Vehicle No. HP17B-4290 which was intercepted, therefore, he started proceedings u/s. 129(1) and imposed a tax/penalty of Rs. 57,708/- under Section 129(3) of CGST Act.

Held that—In my opinion it appears that there was no intention to evade tax and the proper officer has imposed penalty in a mechanical manner and has ignored the guidelines issued vide the above mentioned circular. Therefore, the tax/penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 imposed is unsustainable.—Mahalakshmi Packagers Manufacture Vs. ACST & E-Cum-Proper Officer, Paonta Circle-II [2020] 21 TAXLOK.COM 090 (Appellate Authority-HP)