HC asked the Justice department to impose a minor penalty for an E-Way Bill address error.
Facts and Issue of the Case
The petitioner, a private company involved in the business of steel and HT wires, entered into an arrangement for the delivery of certain items with one M/s Reva Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Jabalpur. The goods had to be delivered to the factory in Rewa, as per the arrangement. The arrangement resulted in the transportation of a shipment by M/s Aryan Transport Company, Nagpur, using a vehicle with the registration number MH-40-BG-6847.
A tax invoice was created that included the destination as well as the vehicle’s registration number, which was recorded as. Following that, the petitioner created an E-way bill, which must be carried with the shipment. However, the third address on the E-way bill was listed as the consignee’s registered office in Jabalpur, rather than Rewa, and as a result, the Revenue Authorities initiated proceedings under the Act, which ultimately resulted in the passing of an order imposing additional tax and penalty on the petitioner, and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioner has challenged both the original and appellate authority’s orders.
Observation of the case
Petitioner’s learned counsel claims that the error in creating the E-way bill was an unintentional human error, and that there was no attempt to escape the tax due, especially as the vehicle number that was conveying the goods was the same, and thus asks for the orders to be quashed.
The parties’ learned counsels have been heard. The issue in question, which is sought to be raised in this petition, has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench (Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others) as well as this Bench (Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others).
In light of the foregoing, and in light of the fact that the error in question was made in good faith, this Court, invoking the principle of parity, directs that the impugned orders issued by respondent Nos. 2, Joint Commissioner State Tax, (Appellate Authority) Satna Division, Satna, and respondent No. 3, State Tax Officer, Anti Evasion Bureau, Satna & Sagar Division, Satna, be quashed.
It is also directed that the respondents are free to evaluate the petitioner’s case for a minor penalty, while treating the error in question as a clerical error, as per a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance of the Government of India.
The court allowed the writ petition.penalty-on-Ebill