Rc Sales And Services Vs State of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the seizure and penalty orders dated 22.06.2023 and 30.07.2024 passed under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under GST and engaged in the business of threshing and crushing machinery, had supplied goods pursuant to a “bill to–ship to” transaction. A tax invoice dated 14.06.2023, a valid e-way bill, and other transport documents accompanied the consignment. During transit, the goods were intercepted on 19.06.2023 and seized in Form MOV-06 on the ground that the place of delivery mentioned in the e-way bill differed.
The petitioner’s case was that all requisite documents were available, the goods matched the invoice in quantity and description, and there was no discrepancy other than a clerical error in the e-way bill: while the “ship to” address correctly stated Samastipur, Bihar, the PIN code mentioned was that of Patna instead of Samastipur. The petitioner explained that the transaction details were correctly reflected in the tax invoice (showing “bill to” Patna, Bihar and “ship to” Samastipur, Bihar) and that the incorrect PIN code in the e-way bill was an inadvertent mistake without mala fide intent. It was further contended that such a minor error is protected under Section 126 of the CGST Act and that proceedings under Section 129 ought not to be initiated where the address of the consignor/consignee is correct and the PIN code error does not extend the validity of the e-way bill, as clarified by the CBIC circular dated 14.09.2018.
