Penalty Can’t Be Imposed for Mere Technical Error with Regard to Address of Consignee in E-way Bill | HC

Case Details: Spirare Energy (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 271 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
• Rahul Agarwal for the Petitioner.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the petitioner-assessee was aggrieved by order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals) who had dismissed appeal filed by petitioner and order-in-original passed by Assessing Authority imposing penalty on petitioner for an error with regard to address of consignee in e-way bill. It filed writ petition and contended that apart from an error with regard to address of consignee in E-way bill, there were no other issues with said consignment.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the goods matched with description in invoice and all other materials were intact except error with regard to address of consignee in e-way bill. The penalty was imposed only on basis of a technical error with regard to address of consignee that was wrongly written in e-way bill.

Moreover, the GST authorities had not been able to indicate any mens rea on part of petitioner for evasion of tax. Therefore, the orders passed by Additional Commissioner (Appeals) and Assessing Authority were liable to be quashed and amount deposited by assessee was to be refunded to it.

List of Cases Referred to

• Modern Traders v. State of U.P. 2018 (14) GSTL 184 (All.) (para 4),
• Galaxy Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 29/100 GST 706/2023 (79) GSTL 160/(2023) 12 Centax 137 (All.) (para 4) and
• Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 200/(2024) 14 Centax 80 (All.) (para 4).