In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court decided that no penalty is required when an incorrect address is entered in the e-way bill due to human error. This decision brings relief to many businesses that face penalties for minor mistakes under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
Key Issue
The main question in this case was whether a small clerical mistake, such as an incorrect delivery address in the GST e-way bill, should lead to a penalty under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017. However, the authorities believed that the error showed non-compliance and imposed a penalty on M/S Uttam Electric Store.
Case Details
1.Parties Involved: M/S Uttam Electric Store (Petitioner) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent).
2.Transaction Overview: The petitioner sent electrical goods to M/s Udit Engineers, Aligarh. However, the e-way bill incorrectly listed “Chandpur (UP)” instead of Aligarh as the delivery address.
3.Action Taken by Authorities: The consignment was stopped, and a penalty was imposed for the incorrect address on the e-way bill, even though all other documentation was correct.
4.Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that there was no intent to commit a wrongful act (mens rea), which is essential for imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Court’s Verdict
The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and canceled the penalty orders. The court noted that:
- The error was a genuine human mistake, not an attempt to avoid taxes.
- The purpose of GST law is to ensure compliance and prevent tax evasion, not to punish honest mistakes.
- Authorities must differentiate between genuine errors and deliberate non-compliance.
- The lack of intent to commit fraud made the penalty unjustified under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Key Takeaways
1.Human Errors vs. Tax Evasion: This judgment shows the importance of separating minor clerical errors from intentional tax evasion.
2.Balanced Approach in Compliance: GST authorities should focus on real cases of evasion and avoid penalizing minor mistakes.
3.Mens Rea Requirement: The case confirms that proving intent is necessary for imposing penalties under Section 129(3) of the GST Act.
Conclusion
This ruling sets an important precedent for similar cases where minor clerical errors could lead to penalties. It highlights the need for a fair approach in GST enforcement. Compliance should be ensured, but without unnecessary penalties for genuine human mistakes.
Reference: Allahabad High Court, M/S Uttam Electric Store vs. State of U.P. [Writ Tax No. 153 of 2021, dated 26 July 2024].
For more information please refer below Judgement:
LinkedIn Link : RMPS Profile
This article is only a knowledge-sharing initiative and is based on the Relevant Provisions as applicable and as per the information existing at the time of the preparation. In no event, RMPS & Co. or the Author or any other persons be liable for any direct and indirect result from this Article or any inadvertent omission of the provisions, update, etc if any.
Published on: August 29, 2024