Minor vehicle prefix error in Part-B e-way bill during stock transfer; detention and s.129 GST penalty set aside.

Detention and penalty under s.129 GST were challenged on the ground that the e-way bill contained an incorrect vehicle registration prefix (HR-73 instead of UP-13T) while the numeric part "6755" matched the transporter's bilty and the movement was an undisputed stock transfer. The HC held that the discrepancy was a minor, bona fide human error confined to Part-B of the e-way bill and, absent any material indicating intent to evade tax, could not justify detention or penalty, consistent with the departmental circulars on minor errors. The detention and appellate orders were set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assailing penalty order under Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Discrepancy in vehicle number on e-way bill during stock transfer.
3. Interpretation of circulars regarding e-way bill errors.
4. Applicability of penalty under Section 129 of the Act.
5. Intent to evade tax in case of clerical error.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, challenged a penalty order and an appellate order passed against it. The penalty was imposed for a stock transfer from one unit to another, where a clerical error in the e-way bill led to a discrepancy in the vehicle number mentioned.

2. The main contention was whether the incorrect entry of the vehicle number on the e-way bill, different from the actual vehicle number in transit, constituted a valid reason for penalty imposition. The goods were being transported with necessary documents, but the e-way bill had a mistake in the vehicle registration number.

3. The petitioner argued that the error was unintentional and cited relevant judgments to support their case. The circulars issued by the Commissioner were discussed, highlighting the permissible errors in the e-way bill entry. The dealer emphasized that there was no intention to evade tax, relying on legal precedents.

4. The Standing Counsel contended that the entire digit mismatch in the e-way bill was significant, and the explanation provided by the dealer should not be accepted. The discrepancy between the vehicle number on the bilty and the e-way bill was a key point of contention during the proceedings.

5. After considering the arguments and examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the clerical error in the e-way bill, regarding the vehicle registration number, did not indicate any intent to evade tax. As it was a case of stock transfer without tax evasion motives, the penalty under Section 129 of the Act was deemed inapplicable. The Court set aside the penalty order and the appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the Court's final decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.

---