Tax Penalty Reduced for Unintentional E-Way Bill Address Error, Authorities Directed to Apply Proportionate Penalty

HC allowed the writ petition challenging tax and penalty orders related to an E-way bill address error. The court quashed the original orders, directing authorities to impose only a minor penalty, recognizing the unintentional nature of the mistake and applying the principle of parity. The decision emphasized distinguishing between clerical errors and intentional tax evasion.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 05.09.2019 and 27.05.2019 passed by respondent authorities under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 regarding additional tax and penalty imposition due to an error in generating E-way bill.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private company dealing in copper cables, entered into an agreement for goods supply with M/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., with delivery at Bhopal. A consignment was transported through M/s Maxwell Logistic Pvt Ltd. using a specific vehicle. However, an error occurred in generating the E-way bill, where the address was mentioned as the consignee's registered office in Indore instead of Bhopal. This led to proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, resulting in the imposition of additional tax and penalty against the petitioner, which was upheld in appeal.

The petitioner argued that the mistake in the E-way bill was unintentional and not meant for tax evasion, as the transporting vehicle remained the same. The court noted that a similar issue had been previously addressed in another case, and considering the bona fide nature of the mistake, the principle of parity was invoked. Consequently, the court quashed the orders dated 05.09.2019 and 27.05.2019 passed by the respondent authorities, directing them to consider the petitioner's case for a minor penalty, treating the error as a clerical mistake as per a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the respondents were given the discretion to impose a minor penalty on the petitioner, considering the nature of the mistake. The court emphasized the importance of the principle of parity and referred to relevant circulars to guide the authorities in handling similar cases in the future.

---