TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 540
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2018 passed by the Inspector of State Tax demanding Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST, for short) of Rs. 1,48,425/- each and a similar sum under State Goods and Service Tax (SGST, for short) with penalties of Rs. 4,12,291/- under CGST and SGST Act, 2017. [2] Brief facts are as under: Petitioner is a proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminium utensils and its unit is located at Agartala. The petitioner purchased certain aluminium products from Hindalco Industries Ltd. which is a Government of India company for a sum of Rs. 19,46,014/- and would be supplied from Kolkata to be transported to Agartala by road. Invoice was generated by the Hindalco on 25.10.2018 which showed that the goods would be tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling upon the petitioner to pay total GST of Rs. 2,96,850/- and penalty of Rs. 8,24,582/- under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. He required the petitioner to appear before him on 19.11.2018 at 10.45 a.m. Strangely, having issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 19.11.2018, the Inspector of State Tax passed the impugned order on 05.11.2018 itself and confirmed the principal tax demand with penalties as noted. This order, the petitioner has challenged on the ground that validity of the E-way bill had expired on account of a clerical error which would not result into any tax liability. The penalty obviously was wrongly demanded. [4] Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to maki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of incorrect distance being shown while generating the E-way bill that at the rate of one day per 100 Kms., the E-way bill was generated with the validity of 5 days instead of 15 days' validity which should have been provided had correct distance been mentioned. (vii) There is no dispute that the goods were sold by way of inter- state sale and on such basis, applicable tax was paid. [7] In view of such undisputable facts, we do not think that the Inspector of State Tax had the power to demand GST with penalty. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, has issued a circular dated 14th September, 2018 clarify the manner in which such clerical errors would be dealt with. The relevant portion of this circular reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t by the proper officer to his controlling officer on a weekly basis." [8] As per this circular thus in case the goods are accompanied by an invoice as also an E-way bill, proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be initiated if there is a error of one or two digits in a document number mentioned in the E-way bill. In such a situation, at best, penalty of Rs. 500 & 1000/- under State and Central GST may be collected under Section 125 of the Act. In tune with these clarifications, even the Central Government in its reply has stated that: "4. That, as to the contents of Para 5 of the instant writ petition the answering respondent submits that the E-way Bill under reference showed the place of dispatch of good....