Wrong address in e-way bill during goods transport: bona fide mistake claim rejected, refund denied over repeated discrepancies and missing records.

The dominant issue was whether interception of goods for a wrong address in the e-way bill entitled the consignor-cum-consignee to refund on the ground of a bona fide mistake and absence of intent to evade tax. The HC held that, since the consignor and consignee were the same, the wrong address could not be treated as an inadvertent error; the petitioner had adequate opportunity to seek correction, and repeated similar discrepancies indicated a possible modus operandi. The Court further held that the petitioner failed to adduce corroborative records (ledger, books, movement register) to establish intended movement to the stated warehouse, and the e-way bill could be misused for multiple consignments. The petition was dismissed and refund was denied.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether detention/seizure and imposition of penalty under Section 129 was justified where the consignment documents (consignment note/invoices) mentioned one destination but the E-way bill mentioned a different destination, and the vehicle was found beyond the destination shown in the E-way bill.

(ii) Whether the mismatch in the consignee/destination address in the E-way bill could be treated as a bona fide clerical error (including by reference to the circular's clause on "error in the address of the consignee"), so as to negate proceedings/penalty under Section 129 and entitle the petitioner to refund of the deposited penalty.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Applicability of Section 129 to movement of goods with incorrect destination in E-way bill

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court proceeded on the basis that where a consignment is found on a route/address other than the address mentioned in the E-way bill, the authorities treat Section 129 as attracted, and that the Department has no effective online shipment tracking mechanism other than interception and verification of documents during movement.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the destination mentioned in the E-way bill as a material movement-control detail. It noted that although the consignment note and invoices carried the "correct" destination, the E-way bill showed a different destination city. The vehicle was intercepted after it had crossed the destination shown in the E-way bill and was found substantially away from that stated destination. On these facts, the Court accepted the Department's position that when goods are found moving beyond/away from the destination reflected in the E-way bill, the statutory consequences under Section 129 follow.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the authorities' action in invoking Section 129 on account of the mismatch between the E-way bill destination and the actual route/location of interception, and declined to interfere with the penalty.

Issue (ii): Whether the incorrect destination in E-way bill was a bona fide clerical error warranting non-initiation of Section 129 proceedings / refund

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court considered the petitioner's reliance on an administrative circular stating that in certain situations (including limited "error in the address of the consignee" where locality/other details are correct), proceedings under Section 129 "may not be initiated." The Court assessed whether the petitioner's case fit within that limited tolerance for address errors.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court distinguished between a minor/locality-level error and a case where the "entire address"/destination city was wrongly mentioned in the E-way bill. It held that the circular's tolerance for address error did not cover a situation where the destination was shown as an entirely different city and the vehicle was intercepted well beyond that stated destination. The Court also relied on surrounding circumstances to reject the plea of inadvertence: the consignor and consignee were the same entity; the petitioner had sufficient time to notice and correct the E-way bill after generation and before interception; and no corrective step was taken. The Court further found absence of corroborative business records (such as ledgers/account books/goods movement register) to substantiate that the goods were in fact meant for the asserted destination, and accepted the concern that an E-way bill could potentially be used multiple times with multiple consignments, making strict compliance significant. On this evidentiary assessment, the Court declined to treat the error as bona fide.

Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that the incorrect destination in the E-way bill was a bona fide clerical mistake covered by the circular's limited exceptions, and therefore no ground was made out to set aside the penalty or to order refund of the amount deposited. The writ petition was dismissed.

---