Centaxonline.
com: A Legal Research Platform on GST, Customs, Excise & Service Tax, Foreign Trade Policy
2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 576 (M.P.) [30-03-2022]
2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 576 (M.P.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sheel Nagu and Maninder S. Bhatti, JJ.
TECHNOSTEEL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No. 6118 of 2021, decided on 30-3-2022
GST : Registered office of consignee at Jabalpur mistakenly mentioned as address on E-Way Bill
instead of its factory at Rewa; department should impose minor penalty for such clerical
mistake
Seizure/Detention of goods in transit under GST - Mistake in E-Way Bill - Registered office of consignee at
Jabalpur mentioned as address on E-Way Bill instead of its factory at Rewa - Bona fide mistake - Orders passed
pursuant to proceedings under Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 quashed - Authorities granted
liberty impose minor penalty, treating mistake in question, to be a clerical mistake as per C.B.I. & C. Circular No.
64/38/2018-GST, dated 14-9-2018. [paras 6, 7, 8]
Petition allowed in favour of assessee
CASES CITED
Create Consults v. State of Madhya Pradesh — Writ Petition No. 344 of 2022, decided on 16-3-2022 by Madhya Pradesh High Court — Followed [Para 6]
Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. — 2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 337 (M.P.) — Followed [Para 6]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.I. & C. Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST (F. No. 20/16/03/2017-GST), dated 14-9-2018 [Para 8]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Alabhya Bajpai, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Naveen Dubey, Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Maninder S. Bhatt, J.]. - The challenge in this petition has been made to the orders dated 21-8-2018 (Annexure P/1)
and 30-10-2019 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent Nos. 2, Joint Commissioner State Tax, (Appellate Authority) Satna Division, Satna and
3, State Tax Officer, Anti-Evasion Bureau, Satna & Sagar Division, Satna, respectively.
2. The fact reveals that the petitioner which is a private company engaged in the business of steel as well as HT wires, entered into
an agreement with one M/s. Reva Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Jabalpur, for supply of certain goods. As per the agreement, the goods had to be
delivered at the factory at Rewa. The said agreement ultimately ensued in transportation of a consignment through M/s. Aryan Transport
Company, Nagpur by vehicle bearing registration No. MH-40-BG-6847.
3. A tax invoice was generated which reflected the destination as well as the registration number of the vehicle which has been
brought on record as Annexure P/3. Thereafter, the petitioner generated E-Way bill which is required to be carried along with the consignment.
However, the address on the E-Way Bill was mentioned at registered office of the consignee at Jabalpur, instead of Rewa and thus, the Revenue
Authorities initiated proceedings under Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which ultimately resulted in passing of the
order by which the liability of additional tax as well as penalty was imposed against the petitioner and the appeal against the said order was
also dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the original as well as Appellate Authority.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the mistake while generating E-Way Bill was an inadvertent human error and there
was no intention to evade the tax liability particularly, when the vehicle number which was transporting the goods was same and hence, prays
for quashment of the orders.
5. We have heard Learned Counsels for the parties.
6. The issue in question which is being sought to be raised in the present petition, has already been decided vide order dated 4-2-
2021 in W.P. No. 12913/2020 [Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Others] [2021 (48) G.S.T.L.
337 (M.P.)] by a Coordinate Bench as well as this Bench vide order dated 16-3-2022 passed in W.P. No. 344/2022.
7. Thus, in view of the above and the mistake in question being bona fide this Court invoking the principle of parity, directs that the
impugned orders dated 21-8-2018 (Annexure P/1) and 30-10-2019 (Annexure P/2) passed 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, respectively, are quashed.
8. It is further directed that the respondents will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty,
while treating the mistake in question, to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14-9-2018 bearing No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST, issued
by Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
9. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
_______
