TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2060
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../AP/116/2024-25 dated 21.05.2025. The Appellate Authority had confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') (2) The facts are that a goods conveyance bearing Number KA35C3989 was intercepted by the Commercial Tax Officer on (Enforcement) - 2, Ballari ("the proper officer") on 18.03.2024 at 08:35 AM. The consignment was accompanied by a delivery challan dated 16.03.2024 and an e-way bill, carrying insecticides from the appellant to M/s Cheminova India Limited, Bellari-583102, for the purpose of purchase return. The e-way bill's validity expired on 17.03.2024 at 11:59 AM. The proper officer treated the movement of goods with an expired e-way bill as movement of goods without an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State of Kerala [2021 (50) GSTL 412]. (4) The learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr S.S. Gowrishankar, made the following submissions; 1. It was submitted that the pincode of the consignor and the consignee was inadvertently mentioned as 583102, whereas the pincode of the consignor was 580025, resulting in the auto-population of the distance as 100 km instead of the actual distance of 215 kms, thereby resulting in the expiry of the Eway bill before delivery of the consignment; 2. It was submitted that the error was a clerical mistake only and that there was no intention to commit any wrong. The proper officer did not find any other mistake on the physical verification of the goods with other documents accompanying the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of the Kerala High Court in the case of Podaran Foods India limited Vs. The State of Kerala [2021 (50) GSTL 412] and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. (6) The decisions relied upon by the appellant are as under: (a) the Gujarat High Court in the decision reported in 2024 (7) TMI 370 (The Landmark Cars Pvt, ltd. Vs. Union of India) had held that a mistake occurring in entering the correct vehicle number in Part B of the e-way bill was a minor error only as intention to evade payment of taxes was absent; (b) the Allahabad High Court in the decision reported in 2024 (9) TMI 1013 (Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) had held that the value of the goods entered as Rs. 2,70,00,000/- in the e-way bill inste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the case of Caterpillar India (Madras) Vs. State Tax Officer, Chennai [2019 (27) GSTL 4], had held that it was the assessing officer/State Tax Officer who was the competent person for the determination of penalty. (c) The Kerala High Court in the case of Podaran Foods India limited Vs. The State of Kerala [2021 (50) GSTL 412] had held that the detaining authority did not have the discretion to release the consignment on terms that are less than what was specified in Section 129(1) of the Act. (8) Heard the rival submissions and perused the connected records. The following issue arises for our consideration - "Whether the imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is justified, fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circular is binding on the authorities like the proper officer by virtue of Section 168 of the Act. (11) The decisions cited by the respondent do not support the case of the respondent for the following reasons; (a) The decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gati Kinetsu Express private limited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2018 (15) GSTL 310] cannot be applied for two reasons. Firstly, the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not subscribed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of BVM Trans Solutions private limited Vs. Commercial Tax Officer [(2025) 37 Centax 391], as could be seen from para 12 of the report. Secondly, the view of the Karnataka High Court was that non-filling up of Pa....