Typographical error in e-way bill did not sustain GST penalty where documents showed the correct taxable value.

A typographical error in the e-way bill did not justify penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act where the accompanying documents correctly reflected the taxable value of the goods. The Court found no indication of an intention to evade tax because the mistaken entry was obvious and the supporting papers matched the true value. It also accepted the departmental circular relied upon and held that sending the petitioner to the appellate remedy would serve no useful purpose on these facts. The detention order was therefore quashed and the penalty was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was sustainable when the discrepancy in the e-way bill was a typographical error and the accompanying documents reflected the correct value of the goods.

Analysis: The documents accompanying the goods showed the correct taxable value, while the e-way bill contained an obvious mistaken entry with an inserted digit. On that factual basis, there was no indication of an intention to evade tax. The Court also noted the departmental circular relied upon by the petitioner and held that relegating the petitioner to the appellate remedy would serve no useful purpose in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 129(3) was not justified, and the impugned detention order was liable to be quashed.

---