GST Course

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


No penalty can be levied if amount wrongly mentioned in E-Way bill when taxes have been paid correctly

Name of Petitioner

RAI PREXIM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Writ Petition (Civil) No.

39022 of 2018

Respondent

  1. STATE OF KERALA
  2. THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST
  3. ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER (PALAKKAD)
  4. AMITY ROCK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
  5. THE UNION OF INDIA
  6. GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL
  7. GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NETWORK
  8. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, KERALA

Court

HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Name of Justice

JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

Date of Judgment

04.12.2018

Detail of Writ Petition

E-way bill generated with wrong value

Facts of Petition

Petitioner generated first e-Way bill with place of delivery as 'Payhanamthitta, Kerala- 686547' and the value of the goods as Rs.3882200/-. This e-Way bill was cancelled by petitioner due to place of delivery wrongly mentioned.

Petitioner generated another e-Way bill with place of delivery as 'Pathanamthitta' but value of the goods mentioned as Rs.388220/- instead of Rs.3882200.

The petitioner's goods have been detained by Assistant State tax Officer (Palakkad) on account of discrepancy in e-Way bill.

Decision

The petitioner's goods have been detained on account of discrepancy in e-Way bill. The first e-Way bill generated by the petitioner, the place of delivery was mentioned as 'Payhanamthitta, Kerala- 686547'. The value of the goods is shown as Rs.3882200/-. Noting that the mention of place of delivery as 'Payhanamthitta' is a mistake, that e-Way bill was cancelled and the petitioner generated another e-Way bill, the place of delivery was correctly shown as 'Pathanamthitta'. However, the value of the goods was mentioned as Rs.388220/- instead of Rs.3882200. Taking exception to this e-Way bill, goods have been detained.

 

According the Honorable Court, If a human error which can be seen on naked eye is detected, such human error cannot be capitalized for penalization. Normally, this Court could not have persuaded to accept the contention on prima facie value as it is a matter for decision by competent authority and this Court can only order release of the vehicle and goods as against Bank guarantee.

On verification, if it is found that the petitioner had paid the IGST in accordance with the value shown in cancelled E-way bill, the vehicle and the goods shall be released to the petitioner on executing a simple bond.

 

However, if it is found that the petitioner had not paid the IGST according to the value shown in cancelled E-way bill, the petitioner's goods and vehicle need be released only on furnishing bank guarantee.

Disclaimer : The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. No part of this article should be distributed or copied without express written permission of the author.


Tags :



Category GST, Other Articles by - Kusum Gandhi 



Comments


update