Typographical Mistake in E-Way Bill Details: Uttarakhand High Court Limits Penalty to Nominal Amount
Background of the Dispute
The Uttarakhand High Court, in Kamlesh Kumar Vs State Tax Officer, examined whether a mere clerical mistake in mentioning e-way bill details on a tax invoice can justify imposition of a substantial penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
The assessee had approached the High Court challenging an order dated 10.09.2023, by which a penalty of ₹10,67,450 was imposed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The core controversy was whether a mismatch between the e-way bill details printed on the tax invoices and the e-way bills actually carried, arising from a typographical lapse, could be treated as a serious contravention warranting detention of goods and levy of penalty under Section 129.
Facts Leading to Penalty
Interception of Vehicle and Documents Produced
On 09.09.2023 at about 8:30 AM, the State Tax authorities intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HR 66C 7016 at Rampur Road, near Rudrapur. The vehicle was carrying aluminium roofing sheets classified under HSN Code 7606.
Upon interception, the driver submitted the following documents to the Department:
- Tax Invoice No. 32/(23-24) dated 06.09.2023 for ₹21,93,075
- E-way bill No. 201643090175 dated 06.09.2023
- Tax Invoice No. 33/(23-24) dated 06.09.2023 for ₹7,72,065
- E-way bill No. 281643148449 dated 06.09.2023
Nature of the Discrepancy
On scrutiny, the Department noticed a discrepancy between the e-way bill particulars as printed on the invoices and the e-way bills that were physically available.
According to the authorities:
- On the tax invoices, the e-way bill numbers were mentioned in a shortened or incomplete form as “32” and “33”,
- Instead of the full format “32/(23-24)” and “33/(23-24)”.
The Department treated this mismatch as a violation in the documents accompanying the goods during movement and proceeded to invoke Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act.
Assessee’s Stand Before the High Court
Plea of Human Error
The assessee contended that the variation was purely an inadvertent typographical or clerical mistake in the manner of reflecting the e-way bill references on the tax invoices.