Typo in e-way bill Part-B vehicle number during GST goods transit-s.129 penalty quashed for no intent to evade tax.

Penalty under s.129 of the GST Act was examined where Part-B of the e-way bill contained an incorrect vehicle number due to a minor typographical error. The HC held that mens rea or intent to evade tax is a sine qua non for levy of penalty; a mere clerical mistake, absent any material indicating evasion, cannot justify penal action. Since the discrepancy (wrongly entering digits in the vehicle number) was evidently typographical and not a major lapse suggesting evasion, the penalty was held without jurisdiction and illegal. The impugned penalty order was set aside and the petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 based on a typographical error in the e-way bill regarding the vehicle number during the transportation of goods.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Typographical error in the e-way bill
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act, supplied cosmetics to another registered dealer in Jharkhand. The consignment was intercepted due to a typographical error in the e-way bill regarding the vehicle number. The authorities imposed a penalty solely on this ground, without any allegation of tax evasion. The petitioner argued that the error was a typographical mistake and cited relevant case law to support their position. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel contended that penalties are not imposed for minor errors beyond two digits in the vehicle number, as per a government circular.

Analysis and Conclusion:
The court found that the typographical error in the e-way bill was a minor discrepancy and not indicative of an intention to evade tax. Referring to relevant case law, the court emphasized the requirement of mens rea for the imposition of penalties under the Act. In cases where errors are minor and do not suggest tax evasion, penalties should not be imposed. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the authorities to provide consequential reliefs to the petitioner within four weeks.

Separate Judgment:
The judgment delivered by the High Court emphasizes the importance of mens rea in cases involving penalties under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. It highlights that minor typographical errors, without evidence of intent to evade tax, should not result in the imposition of penalties. The court relied on precedents to support its decision and provided relief to the petitioner by quashing the penalty orders.

---