Court orders expedited release of goods seized for typographical error in e-way bill, citing minor error exemption

The court directed the 11th respondent to expedite the release of goods seized due to a typographical error in the e-way bill, acknowledging the minor nature of the error and the perishable nature of the goods. The court emphasized the need for prompt action to prevent loss due to the goods' short shelf life, citing Circular No.64/38/2018-GST exempting minor errors in e-way bills from strict enforcement.

---

---

Issues:
1. Typographical error in e-way bill distance causing seizure of goods.
2. Authority's power to correct clerical errors in e-way bill.
3. Detention of goods affecting shelf life and applicability of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a trader, faced seizure of goods by the State Tax Officer in Uttarakhand due to a typographical error in the e-way bill showing the distance between Kerala and Uttarakhand as 280 Kms instead of 2800 Kms. The petitioner could have corrected this error within 24 hours under Rule 138(9) of the CGST Rules. However, the petitioner noticed the error only when the goods were intercepted, leading to detention.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the error was typographical and requested the authority in Kerala to either allow generation of a new e-way bill or certify the error as clerical. The Standing Counsel contended that online systems prevented such corrections and no provision existed for it. The Standing Counsel also stated that the requested certificate was beyond the authority's power, but acknowledged the need for correction in the interest of justice.

3. The detention of natural rubber goods for ten days raised concerns about the perishable nature of the product. The petitioner sought release under Circular No.64/38/2018-GST, which exempts minor errors in e-way bills from strict enforcement. The court acknowledged the typographical nature of the error, with the distance discrepancy being a minor one-zero missing. Considering the circumstances and the circular, the court directed the 11th respondent to expedite the release of goods, emphasizing the need for prompt action to prevent loss due to the goods' short shelf life.

---