We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
<h1>Typographical Error in E-Way Bill Leads to Quashing of Order Under CGST Act, Goods and Vehicle to Be Released</h1> 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 ... Typographical error in e-way bill - No intention to evade tax - Penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act - Relevance of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST - Release of detained goods and vehicleTypographical error in e-way bill - No intention to evade tax - Penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act - Relevance of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST - Whether the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was justified where the taxable amount in the e-way bill misstated the value due to a typographical error and accompanying documents showed the correct value. - HELD THAT: - The court found that all documents accompanying the goods consistently indicated the correct value, and the e-way bill contained an erroneous extra digit (a typographical insertion) that misstated the taxable amount. There was no material to establish any intention to evade tax. Although the petitioner relied on Circular No.64/38/2018-GST, the determinative finding was factual: the error was clerical and not indicative of tax evasion. The court noted that ordinarily it would decline to exercise writ jurisdiction and leave the matter to statutory appeal, but in the present case remanding the petitioner to the appellate remedy would cause disproportionate waste of time and resources given the clear clerical mistake. Consequently, the court concluded that imposing the penalty under Section 129(3) was not justified in these circumstances and set aside the impugned order.Impugned order dated 05.09.2024 quashed; penalty under Section 129(3) set aside and detained goods and vehicle ordered to be released to the petitioner within two weeks on production of a certified copy of this order.Final Conclusion: Writ petition allowed; penalty under Section 129(3) quashed on grounds of a typographical error in the e-way bill with no intention to evade tax, and detained goods and vehicle ordered released upon production of certified copy within two weeks. 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)
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
