Mentioning wrong place of delivery in e-way bill was human error – High Court

Mentioning wrong place of delivery in e-way bill was human error in the absence of finding of mens rea for evading payment of tax – High Court

In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has quashed the penalty order u/s 129 of UPGST Act 2017 holding that mentioning wrong place of delivery in e-way bill was human error in the absence of finding of mens rea for evading payment of tax.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4168 (2024) (07) ITAT

In the instant case, the Petitioner had challenged the penalty order passed u/s 129 of the UPGST Act 2017 (the Act).

The petitioner was engaged in the business of supply of electricals goods. The petitioner supplied electrical goods to a party which was to be consigned to another district. However, in the e-way bill generated, the place of delivery was mentioned as district of the Petitioner instead of the consignee.

When the goods were onward journey, the same were intercepted by the mobile squad. The goods were detained on the ground that the goods were being dispatched on a place different than mentioned in the documents. Thereafter, proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act were initiated and show cause notice was issued. Later, the impugned penalty order was passed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned order.

The Petitioner contended that it was a human error, which could be ignored. He further submitted that there was neither any discrepancies with regard to quality, quantity or any other details mentioned in the accompanying documents, such as, tax invoice, e-way bill, etc..

It was further submitted that the authorities below had not recorded any finding with regard to mens rea, which is essential for levying the penalty under section 129(3) of the GST Act. In support of his submissions, the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of the High Court.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that it was not in dispute that the purchaser was of the same district as of the seller, but the goods were to be consigned to another place/district. This error can occur due to human error while filling up the form/e-way bill. Further, there was no finding recorded by any of the authorities below that there was a mens rea for evading payment of tax. Even before the Court, there was no pleading on behalf of the Sate that there was any intention to evade tax.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that in absence of any finding with regard to mens rea the proceeding under section 129(3) of the Act cannot be initiated.

Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• ITR was not non est for no e-verification when AO took cognizance of returned income
• Section 43CB & ICDS-III is applicable to contractors not to real estate developers
• Expenses of ESOP are allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of Income Tax Act.
• Compliance history of supplier can’t be used to invalidate genuine business transactions of buyer
• Reassessment quashed as AO issued notice u/s 148 instead of 153C as reopening was based on search