https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423435 The HC allowed the petition involving seizure of goods and vehicle where petitioner had omitted alphabetical figures from invoice number, referring only to "235" instead of "SAI/V235". The State cited Achal Industries v. State of Karnataka regarding economic superiority in tax matters, but the court distinguished this case as involving a charging section interpretation rather than penal consequences. The court found the omission was inadvertent human error without intent to evade tax, as invoice number 235 was consistently maintained in all documentation. The error fell within Clause 5 of the 14th September 2018 Circular, making the penalty pardonable. en-us Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 17:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423435 The HC allowed the petition involving seizure of goods and vehicle where petitioner had omitted alphabetical figures from invoice number, referring only to "235" instead of "SAI/V235". The State cited Achal Industries v. State of Karnataka regarding economic superiority in tax matters, but the court distinguished this case as involving a charging section interpretation rather than penal consequences. The court found the omission was inadvertent human error without intent to evade tax, as invoice number 235 was consistently maintained in all documentation. The error fell within Clause 5 of the 14th September 2018 Circular, making the penalty pardonable. Case-Laws GST Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423435