Technosteel Infraprojects PVT.LTD. vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the mistake in the E-way bill was a bona fide clerical error. Invoking the principle of parity, the Court referred to its previous decisions in W.P.No.12913/2020 and W.P.No.344/2022, which dealt with similar inadvertent errors in E-way bills. The Court found that the error was not indicative of an intention to evade tax, especially since the vehicle number was correctly stated. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 21.08.2018 and 30.10.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appellate Authority) and the State Tax Officer (Anti Evasion Bureau) were quashed. The Court further directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for the imposition of a minor penalty, treating the mistake as clerical, in line with Circular No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

Facts

The petitioner, Technosteel InfrapProjects Pvt. Ltd., entered into an agreement to supply goods to M/s Reva Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at their factory in Rewa. The goods were transported via M/s Aryan Transport Company. A tax invoice was generated correctly reflecting the destination. However, the E-way bill erroneously mentioned the consignee's registered office in Jabalpur instead of Rewa. This discrepancy led the Revenue Authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, resulting in the imposition of additional tax and penalty. The petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed. The petitioner challenged both the original order and the appellate order before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the discrepancy in the E-way bill, specifically mentioning the consignee's registered office in Jabalpur instead of the actual delivery destination in Rewa, constitutes a deliberate attempt to evade tax liability, thereby justifying the imposition of additional tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's contention: The mistake in the E-way bill was an inadvertent human error, not an intentional act to evade tax. The vehicle number transporting the goods remained consistent, indicating no intent to deceive. Therefore, the impugned orders imposing tax and penalty should be quashed. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the Revenue. However, their actions in initiating proceedings under Section 129 and imposing tax and penalty suggest they believed there was a violation warranting such measures.