Penalty does not impose for human errors if delivery location is wrong mentioned in an e-way bill.

A court case involving a penalty levied for an Human error in an e-way bill.

Case Summary:

• A company (Uttam Electric Store) supplied electrical goods to M/s Chandpur Enterprises Limited, Chandpur, Bijnaur.
• The goods were intended for M/s Udit Engineers, Aligarh.
• An e-way bill was generated, but it mistakenly listed the place of delivery as "Chandpur (UP)" instead of Aligarh.
• The authorities detained the goods and imposed a penalty under Section 129 of the UPGST Act.
• The petitioner challenged the penalty order in court.

Arguments:

• Petitioner: The error was unintentional (human error) and there was no attempt to evade tax. All other documents (tax invoice, etc.) were correct. Relied on previous court judgments Nancy Trading Company Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others [2024 TAXONATION 1671 (ALLAHABAD)] and  Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs. State of U.P. [2023 TAXONATION 1684 (ALLAHABAD)] requiring proof of "mens rea" (guilty mind) for penalty under Section 129(3).
• State: The goods were not accompanied by proper documents as the e-way bill had an error. No reply was submitted after the goods were seized.

Court's Decision:

• The court agreed with the petitioner.
• The error was a technicality and there was no evidence of intent to evade tax.
• The court cited a previous case (Nancy Trading Company) where a similar penalty was quashed due to lack of "mens rea."

GST Case Law Uttam Electric Store Versus State of UP

Citation-2024 TAXONATION 1747 (ALLAHABAD)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL CASE LAW 

OR 

SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)

FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj