Kamlesh Kumar Vs State Tax Officer (Uttarakhand High Court)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 10.09.2023 imposing a penalty of ₹10,67,450 under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Department intercepted vehicle No. HR 66C 7016 carrying aluminium roofing sheets (HSN Code 7606) at Rampur Road, Rudrapur on 09.09.2023 at 8:30 AM. The driver produced two tax invoices dated 06.09.2023 and corresponding e-way bills. The Department found a mismatch between the e-way bill details mentioned in the invoices and the e-way bills produced. According to the Department, the invoices mentioned only “32” and “33” instead of “32/(23-24)” and “33/(23-24)”.
The petitioner submitted that the discrepancy was an inadvertent human error and relied upon the CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018, which provides that inadvertent mistakes and typographical errors in documents should attract a penalty of ₹500 each under Section 125 of the CGST Act and the respective SGST Act, rather than proceedings under Section 129. The petitioner also relied on the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment dated 27.04.2022 in M/s Sonal Automation Industries vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, where, in a similar case involving a mismatch in the e-way bill number on the tax invoice, the Court held that Section 129 should not be invoked. The earlier judgment observed that Clause 5 of the Circular should be construed rationally, that minor discrepancies not affecting tax liability should be overlooked, and that where there was no apparent intention to deceive the revenue and all other particulars correctly matched the tax invoice, the error fell within the exception provided in Clause 5 of the Circular.
