No penalty for inadvertent or bonafide mistake in e-way bill: High Court

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority u/s 129(3) of GST Act imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner.

Petitioner is an event management firm having its head office at Katni, Madhya Pradesh. Petitioner was awarded a contract at Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, in the State of Uttarakhand. For that purpose, it was transporting LED panels. While in transit through State of U.P., the vehicle was stopped for inspection. It was found accompanying with the e-way bill disclosing transportation of LED panels from the petitioner's place of business at Katni to the petitioner's other place of business at Haridwar, Uttarakhand.

Perusal of the e-way bill reveals, the petitioner made an inadvertent error in applying for the e-way bill. After mentioning the place of shipment to "Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, Uttarakhand", the words "Madhya Pradesh - 483501" were filled up. The address having been thus wrongly filled up and the pin code having been filled up of Katni, Madhya Pradesh, the software was forced to commit an error by filling up the destination of transportation to 100 kms thought it should have auto-generated that field, at about 1000 kms. Prompted by that, the software then generated the validity period of the e-way bill to one day. It thus expired on next day. Occasioned solely by that occurrence, goods were seized, tax and penalty demanded.

Held by High Court:

In view of such facts, there appears no doubt to the genuineness of the explanation furnished by the assessee that the mistake was inadvertent.

Once the assessee had disclosed the place of shipment at Haridwar, Uttarkhand, there survived no occasion to fill up the place of destination at Madhya Pradesh with the pin code of the petitioner's office at Katni, Madhya Pradesh.

Clearly, the mistake was bonafide as sometime occurs.

In absence of any allegation or material found of ill-intent on part of the assessee to transport the goods for the purposes of sale, the imposition of tax and demand of penalty is wholly unfounded. The goods are old.

The breach was technical and not real.

In view of the above, the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Act and the appeal order dated 5.3.2021 found to be perverse and are set aside. 

:

E-way Bill

taxreply.com © 2024. All Rights Reserved