Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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