Tax Penalty for Vehicle Number Mistake - Allahabad High Court Judgments
Raja Abhishek NIRC Candidate
Regional Council Candidate for NIRC 2024 | Fighting for Tax Simplification, against Unnecessary Demands and Notices in GST and Direct Taxes | 9810638155
Without proving Intention to Evade, the Tax Department cannot levy a Penalty merely based on a mistake in entering the vehicle number!! Please save/bookmark this post for future use. I am sharing a few High Court judgments that could help you in case of human error.
1. Uttam Electric Store - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 21 CENTAX 189
Assessee supplied goods to a purchaser of Chandpur, UP which was consigned to ‘Udit Engineers, Aligarh’ - In e-way bill, place of delivery was mentioned as ‘Chandpur (UP)’
There being human error while filling up e-way bill and no finding being recorded by any authority below that there was mens rea essential for levying penalty under Section 129(3) of CGST Act, impugned penalty orders were to be set aside.
2. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 18 CENTAX 209
Vehicle No. UP-11T/2175 was mistakenly mentioned as UP-14BT/3276.
Where petitioner-assessee had no intention to evade any tax, therefore, minor discrepancy as to registration of vehicle in State on e-way bill would not attract proceedings for penalty under Section 129; Detention order and appellate order were to be set aside.
3. BMR Enterprises - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 19 CENTAX 57
Vehicle No. UP 83 CT 2724 was entered as UP 80 CT 7024.
Where goods were detained and penalty was levied for minor discrepancies in vehicle registration details in e-way bill, High Court set aside penalty order, holding it to be case of unintentional mistake not attracting penalty.
4. Deco Plywood Industries - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 19 CENTAX 297
Vehicle No. HR 58B 9542 was entered as DL1 AA 5332.
Where assessee/petitioner-dealer argued that penalty was wrongly imposed for minor e-way bill error without tax evasion intent, High Court quashed orders, ruling that Section 129 penalties cannot apply to minor, non-evasive errors.
5. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 82 GSTL 409
Vehicle No. DL1 AA 5332 was entered as DL1 AA 3552.
For minor typographical error of vehicle number in e-way bill, penalty is not impossible
6. Varun Beverages Ltd. - Allahabad High Court (2023) 71 GSTL 4
Vehicle No. HR-73/6755 was entered as UP-13T/6755.
Minor discrepancy in description of vehicle in e-way bill could not attract proceedings for detention of goods and levy of penalty where there was no intention on part of dealer to evade tax. I hope you will find this post useful
Thanks
Raja Abhishek
9810638155