TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order under section 129(3) issued in Form MOV-09, imposing a tax of Rs. 27,540/- and an equivalent amount as penalty. 2. Petitioner has a valid GST registration and carries on the business in electrical contract works. It is pleaded that, in connection with the work of a hospital at Assam, some goods were transported through a vehicle after paying the required tax. During the course of transportation from Ernakulam, the goods were intercepted by the first respondent, who detained the goods under section 129 of the Act on noticing an irregularity in the e-way bill. Though the goods were being transported on 02-03-2021 (2nd March, 2021) the invoice mentioned the date as 03.02.2021 (3rd February, 2021). There was thus a discrepancy in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-yyyy" was the cause of mistake and that for such an inconsequential and minor mistake, petitioner ought not to be subjected to such huge liabilities. The learned counsel further relied upon the Circulars issued by the CBDT dated 14-09-2018 and contended that mistakes of a minor nature cannot be visited with such a huge penalty. 6. Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the remedy of the petitioner is to invoke the appellate forum under the statute and not by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She relied upon the decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited [(2021) SCC Online SC 884] and contended that the petitioner has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d document and not an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may be initiated. "5. Further, in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the following situations: a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; b) Error in the pin code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill; c) Error in the address of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in the Circular. However, the analysis of the six instances reveals those discrepancies which have no bearing on tax liability and are caused on account of bonafide mistakes like typographical errors, or otherwise are regarded as minor discrepancies. In fact, the situation in the present case can be even brought under the broader umbrage of clause (d) of para 5 of the Circular. 11. In the instant case, the discrepancy pointed out is only on the date of invoice which is shown as 03.02.2021 while that shown in the e-way bill was 02.03.2021. All other details in the invoice and the e-way bill including the nature of goods transported, the details of consignor and consignee, the GSTIN of supplier and recipient, place of delivery, invoice....