Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit ––-The petitioner challenged the orders dated 21.08.2018 and 30.10.2019. While delivering goods, the petitioner in the E way bill mentioned the address of the consignee at Jabalpur, instead of Rewa and accordingly, the respondent proceeded under Section 129 of Act. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the original as well as appellate Authority. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the mistake while generating E-way bill was an inadvertent human error and there was no intention to evade the tax liability particularly, when the vehicle number which was transporting the goods was same. The court observed that the issue raised in the present petition, has already been decided vide order dated 04.02.2021 (Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others) vide order dated 16.03.2022. The mistake in question is bonafide.

Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned orders dated 21.08.2018 and 30.10.2019. Further directed that the respondents will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty, while treating the mistake in question, to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14.09.2018 bearing No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST.