Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 316 on expiry of E-way bill due to clerical error

GST Update No 316 on expiry of E-way bill due to clerical error
After implementation of GST regime, one of the common point for litigation is detention of goods due to expiry of e-way bill. It is often observed that the goods are being moved even after expiry of e-way bill due to procedural irregularities and inability to extend the said e-way bill. However, there is no malafide intention attributed on the part of the supplier of goods but departmental authorities exercise their power of detention of goods thereby levying heave penalties. The Courts are flooded with detention cases wherein they have stepped forward and delivered that the harsh penalties should not be levied merely because of technical errors in e-way bills. Recently, one such issue on similar subject matter was reported before Tripura High Court in the case of TIRTHAMOYEE ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS V/S STATE OF TRIPURA. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of our present update.The petitioner is a proprietor and engaged in the business of manufacturing of alumininum utensils. Certain products were purchased from Hindalco Industries Ltd. which is a Government company and would be supplied to Kolkata to be transported to Agartala by road. Invoice was generated for transporting goods from Howrah to Agartala. Further, Test Certificate and Packing Slip of the goods under transportation were also generated regarding number of items, their weight, chemical composition etc. The petitioner submitted that due to clerical error the distance of place of origin to destination was shown as 470 Kms instead of 1470 kms and hence, the validity period of e-way bill was of 5 days. The goods were intercepted at Tripura border and a memo of detention of goods was also issued stating that the goods were transported without a valid E-way bill. A show cause notice dated 05.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner to pay GST along with penalty. On same day the impugned order was also passed confirming the
principal tax along with penalties. The petitioner submitted challenged the order and argued that expiry of e-way bill was due to clerical error which would not result into any tax liability.The counsel of revenue stated that transporter was carrying the goods without valid E-way bill. Further, the tax inspector was within his right to demand taxes and penalties.

The Court stated that defect of the goods in transporting without valid E-way bill was due to minor oversight and a clerical error. It is clearly a typographical error wherein distance is wrongly mentioned as 470 kms instead of 1470 kms. Therefore, it was stated that inspector had no power to demand GST along with penalty. Reference was further drawn to CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018 wherein the manner to deal with clerical errors was mentioned. It was stated that as per Circular, proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be initiated if there is an error of one or two digits in a document number mentioned in the E-way bill. In such a situation, at best, penalty of Rs.500 & 1000/- under State and Central GST may be collected under Section 125 of the Act. It was concluded that the present case is not a fit case where petitioner is relegated to file appeal more importantly when the order suffered from gross irregularity of no hearing been granted to the petitioner since the show cause notice and order was passed on the same day. This was wholly impermissible since it does not treat this order as a tentative demand but as a mandatory demand. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.The above decision is a landmark decision as it seeks to quash the detention orders where the e-way bill had expired due to genuine mistake occurred while mentioning the distance of travel. There had been various cases wherein it is ruled out that clerical mistakes should not lay a foundation for levying heavy penalties. Reference can be drawn to M/s Daya Shankar Singh and State of Madhya Pradesh, R.K. Motors V/s State Officers, M.R. Traders V/s Assistant Tax Officer etc. It is high time that judicial rulings like these should be followed by the revenue authorities unconditionally failing which the Courts will be flooded with petitioner similar to the one discussed in this update.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com