Importance of the phrase “Inter alia” used in Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated September 14, 2017, and its impact on penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017.
In this article, I have explored whether a taxpayer is obligated to pay a penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017 when a mistake is minor, clerical, or technical but not explicitly covered by the six instances outlined in Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated September 14, 2018.
Page Contents
Section 68 of CGST Act 2017
According to Section 68 of the CGST Act, along with Rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (referred to as ‘the CGST Rules’), the person in charge of a conveyance carrying goods valued at more than Rs 50,000/- must carry specific documents. These documents include the invoice, bill of supply, delivery challan, bill of entry, and a valid e-way bill in either physical or electronic form for verification.
Failure to carry these documents constitutes a violation of the law, and the provisions of Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act can be invoked. Additionally, it’s important to note that not providing information in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 renders the e-way bill invalid for road transportation, except when goods are transported within a distance of up to fifty kilometers within the same state or union territory between the transporter’s place of business and the consignor’s or consignee’s place of business.
Section 129 of CGST Act 2017
Section 129 of the CGST Act provides for the detention and seizure of goods and conveyances. These can be released upon payment of the requisite penalty in cases where the goods are transported in violation of the provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder. However, it has come to notice that proceedings under section 129 are being initiated even for minor, clerical, or technical mistakes mentioned in the documents, as per rule 138A.
Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST New Delhi, dated 14th September 2018
“In light of the stringent penalty provisions under section 129 of the CGST Act 2017, several representations were submitted to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) regarding the imposition of penalties for minor discrepancies in the details mentioned in e-way bills. Despite no major lapses in the invoices accompanying the goods during movement, penalties were being levied. After careful examination, the CBIC, exercising its powers conferred under section 168 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘the CGST Act’), issued Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST on September 14, 2018. This circular addresses technical and clerical mistakes related to e-way bills.
Para No. 5 of circular number 64/38/2018-GST is reproduced as follows :
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 the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct;
d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill;
e) Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentioned is correct;
f) Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number.
In the circular, the CBIC has outlined six specific situations or instances. However, questions arise regarding whether these six situations are the sole scenarios covering minor mistakes, or if there might be other mistakes falling under the category of ‘minor’ that are not explicitly addressed in those six situations.
Upon reading the statutory Circular, it becomes evident that its purpose is to alleviate the hardships faced by taxpayers due to minor discrepancies. These discrepancies, which do not impact tax liability or the nature of goods being transported, have led to penalties. The circular holds statutory authority and is binding on Tax Officers. Consequently, minor discrepancies cannot be penalized contrary to the mode and procedure outlined in the Circular.
It’s worth noting that the Circular specifically mentions only six instances of minor discrepancies. However, upon closer analysis, these instances encompass discrepancies that have no bearing on tax liability. Such discrepancies often result from bona fide mistakes, such as typographical errors, and are rightfully considered minor.
“To address this question, we must examine the circular. In paragraph number 5, the CBIC has employed the phrase ‘inter alia.’ Now, the question arises: Why did the CBIC use this phrase before listing six situations?”
“To find the answer to this question, we first need to comprehend the meaning of the term ‘inter alia.’
What is the meaning of the phrase “inter alia”?
The phrase “inter alia” is a Latin phrase that means “among other things”. It is often used in legal writings and pleadings to specify one example out of many.
“inter alia” means “among other things” or “among other matters.” It is used to indicate that there are additional items or points to consider, without specifying them explicitly.
For example:
The plaintiff’s damages, inter alia, include medical expenses and lost income resulting from the defendant’s negligence.
“The company initiated legal proceedings against their former employee claiming, inter alia, breach of contract.” In this sentence, inter alia signals that there are other allegations or claims besides the breach of contract.
For instance, a supplier contract could state: “This agreement is between Company X and its affiliates, employees, inter alia, and Company Y.” Adding inter alia indicates that Company X’s contractors, shareholders, etc. are also bound by the contract even though not directly named.
It means inter alia is used to indicate other additional items/ points/information/situations to consider, without specifying them explicitly.
“Inter alia” is also often used in reporting court decisions to show that there were other rulings made by the court but only a particular part of the case was cited.
The phrase “inter alia” is commonly used to indicate that there are additional points or matters to consider beyond what has been explicitly mentioned. It serves as a concise way to refer to other relevant aspects without going into exhaustive detail.
For instance, in a legal document or argument, you might encounter a sentence like this:
“The defendant’s actions constituted a breach of contract, negligence, and fraud, inter alia.”
In this context, “inter alia” signals that there are other legal grounds or claims being made against the defendant, apart from the ones explicitly listed (breach of contract, negligence, and fraud).
Remember that “inter alia” serves as a concise way to refer to other relevant aspects without going into exhaustive detail.
Reason for using the phrase “Inter alia”
After a thorough examination of the meaning of ‘inter alia”, considering the provided definitions, legal terminology, and examples, we can conclude that ‘inter alia’ not only encompasses the situations explicitly mentioned in Circular No. 64 but also extends to other scenarios where minor errors occur but situations not covered by the six specific instances. By using the phrase ‘inter alia,’ the CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs) has made it clear that they do not intend to penalize taxpayers for minor mistakes beyond those explicitly outlined. It’s important to recognize that in practical scenarios, there could be numerous situations, and the CBIC cannot list them all. Hence, the use of “inter alia” serves this purpose
Based on the previous submissions, it is clear that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) intentionally and purposefully used the phrase “inter alia”. The CBIC’s objective is to cover all potential errors related to e-way bills. While clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) specifically address situations outlined in Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, the inclusion of the term “inter alia” ensures that any conceivable errors or oversights in e-way bill generation are also considered.
Conclusion
Whenever a taxpayer faces an issue related to a penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act 2017 for any mistake, it’s important to recognize that the mistake is covered by the phrase “inter alia” and extends beyond the six specific instances mentioned in the Circular. Taxpayers should take note of this term before making any payment toward penalties under Section 129. In numerous instances, taxpayers can avoid the severe penalties if their mistake is minor, falls outside the explicitly listed six instances, and is covered by the broader term “inter alia”
***
This Article is written by CPA CA Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal. His email address is rkcamballb@gmail.com and his Mobile No. 9818595050
Author Bio
