The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty, treating it to be a clerical mistake. the respondents are not justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner merely on the ground that the name of the consignee is not matching.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017— Goods in Transit —– The petitioner challenged the order dated 28-9-2019, whereby the appellate authority has confirmed the imposition of tax and penalty. The petitioner imported boring machine cutter parts from its parent company from USA. It’s clearing agent while shipping the goods from Custom Station, to the office of the petitioner, generated E-way bill in which by mistake erroneously entered its own name in the column of consignee. The respondent intercepted the vehicle. The petitioner submitted a reply along with an affidavit given by the clearing agent, stating that the mistake was not committed intentionally or with malafide intention. But the respondent detained the vehicle and levied tax and penalty. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before the appellate Authority, which was also rejected. The court observed that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the mistake committed while generating the E-way bill, was not a clerical error or a small mistake.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 28-9-2019 and 14-12-2018 confirming the tax and penalty. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty, treating it to be a clerical mistake, as per Circular, dated 14-9-2018 No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST issued by the Ministry of Finance.