Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 129 of the GST law was justified for a mistaken vehicle number in the tax invoice and e-way bill, and whether the error was only a minor typographical lapse covered by the relevant circulars.
Analysis: The vehicle number in both the tax invoice and the e-way bill contained a two-digit mistake, while the goods description, quantity, validity of the e-way bill, and the tax chain were otherwise not in dispute. The appellate authority treated the mistake as a typographical error and noted the absence of material showing an intention to evade tax. It also applied the departmental circulars, which discourage section 129 proceedings for specified minor errors, including mistakes in vehicle number, and held that the proper officer had acted mechanically in invoking confiscatory penalty for a curable clerical lapse.
Conclusion: The penalty and demand under section 129 were not sustainable to that extent, and the matter was modified by treating the mistake as a minor error attracting only the prescribed nominal penalty under section 125.
Ratio Decidendi: A minor typographical error in the vehicle number in the invoice and e-way bill, without evidence of tax evasion or dispute about the goods, does not justify full penalty proceedings under section 129 where the governing circulars treat such mistakes as curable procedural lapses.