GST detention and penalty sustained where e-way bill destination mismatch was not treated as a bona fide clerical error.

Detention of goods and penalty under GST were upheld where the e-way bill showed a destination inconsistent with the invoices and other transport documents. The HC found that the discrepancy was not cured before interception despite sufficient to do so, and that the incorrect address was unsupported by any contemporaneous business record. It also noted that the consignor and consignee were the same entity, but the facts did not bring the case within the limited relaxation for minor consignee-detail errors in the CBIC circular. On these facts, the mismatch was treated as more than a clerical or bona fide error, and the levy under Section 129 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention of goods and levy of penalty under the GST law were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the incorrect destination entry in the e-way bill was only a clerical or bona fide error.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by invoices and an e-way bill, but the destination shown in the e-way bill did not match the destination reflected in the other transport documents. The Court noted that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to correct the discrepancy, yet no corrective step was taken before interception. It also considered that the consignor and consignee were the same entity, that the incorrect address was not supported by any contemporaneous business record, and that the case did not satisfactorily fall within the limited relaxation contemplated by the CBIC circular dealing with minor errors in consignee details. On these facts, the discrepancy was not accepted as a mere inadvertent mistake warranting interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty and detention action failed, and the levy under Section 129 was sustained.

---