TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mode and procedure contemplated under the Circular - the Circular refers to only six instances of minor discrepancies. Strictly speaking, the present situation is not covered by the six instances mentioned in the Circular. However, the analysis of the six instances reveals those discrepancies which have no bearing on tax liability and are caused on account of bonafide mistakes like typographical errors, or otherwise are regarded as minor discrepancies. In the instant case, the discrepancy pointed out is only on the date of invoice which is shown as 03.02.2021 while that shown in the e-way bill was 02.03.2021. All other details in the invoice and the e-way bill including the nature of goods transported, the details of consignor and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d through a vehicle after paying the required tax. During the course of transportation from Ernakulam, the goods were intercepted by the first respondent, who detained the goods under section 129 of the Act on noticing an irregularity in the e-way bill. Though the goods were being transported on 02-03-2021 (2nd March, 2021) the invoice mentioned the date as 03.02.2021 (3rd February, 2021). There was thus a discrepancy in the date on the invoice. According to the petitioner, the error occurred due to the default computer formatting system. Instead of day-month-year (dd-mm-yyyy) formatting for the Indian system, the computer-generated bill provided for a month-day-year (mm-dd-yyyy) format. As a result, instead of 02-03-2021, the invoice bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h a huge penalty. 6. Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the remedy of the petitioner is to invoke the appellate forum under the statute and not by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She relied upon the decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and Others v. Commercial Steel Limited [(2021) SCC Online SC 884] and contended that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of an appeal under the statute and that there was no reason to entertain this writ petition. It was further pointed out that the mistake in the format could have been purposeful for evasion of tax and hence the said disputed question ought not to be considered by this court. 7. I have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the following situations: a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; b) Error in the pin code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill; c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill; e) Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentioned is correct; f) Error i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oader umbrage of clause (d) of para 5 of the Circular. 11. In the instant case, the discrepancy pointed out is only on the date of invoice which is shown as 03.02.2021 while that shown in the e-way bill was 02.03.2021. All other details in the invoice and the e-way bill including the nature of goods transported, the details of consignor and consignee, the GSTIN of supplier and recipient, place of delivery, invoice number, value of goods, HSN code, vehicle number etc. tallied and had no discrepancy. Thus the error noticed is insignificant and not of any consequence for invoking the power conferred under section 129 of the Act to impose tax and penalty. 12. The Madras High Court had in Tvl.R.K.Motors v. State Tax Officer [(2019) 72 GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
