https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450554 The Allahabad HC allowed a petition challenging penalty imposition under Section 129 for incorrect document/invoice number in e-way bill. The petitioner had entered "2224" instead of "0401," creating a four-digit difference exceeding the permitted two-digit variance per government circular. The court held that mere typographical errors without evidence of tax evasion intent cannot justify penalty imposition. Citing precedent from M/s. Varun Beverages Limited, the HC distinguished between minor clerical mistakes and major lapses indicating evasion intent. The court ruled penalty imposition was without jurisdiction and illegal, emphasizing equitable application of law rather than mechanical enforcement for innocent errors. en-us Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450554 The Allahabad HC allowed a petition challenging penalty imposition under Section 129 for incorrect document/invoice number in e-way bill. The petitioner had entered "2224" instead of "0401," creating a four-digit difference exceeding the permitted two-digit variance per government circular. The court held that mere typographical errors without evidence of tax evasion intent cannot justify penalty imposition. Citing precedent from M/s. Varun Beverages Limited, the HC distinguished between minor clerical mistakes and major lapses indicating evasion intent. The court ruled penalty imposition was without jurisdiction and illegal, emphasizing equitable application of law rather than mechanical enforcement for innocent errors. Case-Laws GST Tue, 05 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450554