E-way bill
Case Title | Technosteel Infraproject Pvt vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. |
Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Sheel Nagu & Justice Mahinder S.Bhatti |
Citation | 2022 (3) GSTPanacea 306 HC Madhya Pradesh W.P.No. 6118 of 2021 |
Judgement Date | 30-March-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Alabhya Bajpal |
Council for Respondent | Naveen Dubey |
Section | Section 129 of CGST Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Assesses |
The Madhya Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Sheel Nagu & Justice Mahinder S.Bhatti has held that Court invoking the principle of parity, directs that the impugned orders dated 21.08.2018 and 30.10.2019 respectively, are quashed. Mistake while generating E-way bill was an inadvertent human error and there was no intention to evade the tax liability.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner which is a private company engaged in the business of steel as well as HT wires, entered into an agreement with one M/s Reva Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Jabalpur, for supply of certain goodsA tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the registration number of the vehicle A tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the registration number of the vehicle Thereafter, the petitioner generated E-way bill which is required to be carried along with the consignment. However, the address on the E-way bill was mentioned at registered office of the consignee at Jabalpur, instead of Rewa and thus, the Revenue Authorities initiated proceedings under Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which ultimately resulted in passing of the order by which the liability of additional tax as well as penalty was imposed against the petitioner and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the original as well as appellate Authority. petitioner submits that the mistake while generating E-way bill was an inadvertent human error and there was no intention to evade the tax liability particularly, when the vehicle number which was transporting the goods was same and hence, prays for quashment of the orders
E-way bill
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the issue in question which is being sought to be raised in the present petition, has already been decided vide order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.12913/2020 (Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others) by a Coordinate Bench as well as this Bench vide order dated 16.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.344/2022 Thus, in view of the above and the mistake in question being bonofide this Court invoking the principle of parity, directs that the impugned orders dated 21.08.2018 and 30.10.2019 respectively, are quashed.
E-way bill
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
It is further directed that the respondents will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty, while treating the mistake in question, to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14.09.2018 bearing No.CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST, issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: