No Penalty Can Be Imposed Under Gst Act for Human Error in Mentioning Place of Delivery in E-Way Bill | HC

Case Details: Uttam Electric Store v. State of U.P. - [2024] 165 taxmann.com 264 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Piyush Agrawal, J.
• Suyash Agarwal for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was engaged in the business of supply of electrical goods. It supplied electrical goods to a company in Chandpur (UP) and the goods were consigned to Aligarh. The e-way bill was also generated but in the e-way bill, the place of delivery was mentioned as “Chandpur (UP)”, instead of the consignee of Aligarh. The goods were detained on its onward journey on the ground that the goods were being dispatched to a place different than mentioned in the documents.

Thereafter, proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act were initiated and show cause notice was issued. The penalty order was passed and appeal was also filed but the same was rejected. It filed writ petition against the detention of goods.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the error could occur due to human error while filling up the form/e-way bill. In the present case, there was no pleading on behalf of Revenue that there was any intention to evade tax and no finding was recorded by any of the authorities that there was a mens rea for evading payment of tax. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Nancy Trading Company v. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. 892 of 2023, decided on 15-7-2024], relied on.