2024 (9) TMI 1013 - HC - GST

Typographical Error in E-Way Bill Leads to Quashing of Order Under CGST Act, Goods and Vehicle to Be Released

Rimjhim Ispat Limited Versus State of Up And 2 Others

HC allowed the petition, quashing the order under CGST Act due to a typographical error in the e-way bill. The court found no tax evasion intent and ruled ... Penalty u/s 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - typographical error in the e-way bill - no intent to evade tax - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the documents, there does not appear to be any intention to evade tax and error is only typographical error. Normally in such cases, the jurisdiction is not exercised and the writ petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. However, in this case relegating the writ petitioner to the statutory appeal would be a significant waste of time and energy of the petitioner and the department. Since the mistake is clearly only a typographical error. Since there is no intention to evade tax, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 is quashed and set aside. The goods and vehicle that have been detained by the authorities should be released to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 due to a typographical error in the e-way bill. The penalty imposed was not justified as there was no intention to evade tax. The goods and vehicle detained should be released to the petitioner within two weeks. (Case citation: TMI)