The Uttarakhand High Court addressed a case involving Kamlesh Kumar, who challenged a penalty imposed by the State Tax Officer for discrepancies in e-way bill details during the transportation of aluminium roofing sheets. The penalty amounted to ₹10,67,450 under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. The issue arose when the e-way bill numbers on the tax invoices did not exactly match those produced by the driver due to a typographical error. Kamlesh Kumar argued that this was a human error, referencing the CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018, which suggests only a nominal penalty for minor mistakes. The Department conceded that the goods matched the declarations in the e-way bill, with no discrepancies in the transported goods.
Read more: Supreme Court - Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed if the supplier has not deposited the tax, and the provision imposing this condition is constitutionally valid [Order attached]
The central question was whether a minor typographical error, without any intention to evade tax, could justify a penalty under Section 129. The High Court found that the mismatch was a simple clerical error, with no evidence of undue benefit or tax evasion by the petitioner. Citing a prior decision and the CBIC Circular, the Court held that such minor errors should not lead to proceedings under Section 129. Since there was no revenue implication, the Court quashed the penalty order, allowed the writ petition, and directed a refund of the amount deposited by Kamlesh Kumar, minus the nominal penalty as per the CBIC Circular.
Order Date - 15 July 2026
Parties: Kamlesh Kumar Vs State Tax Officer
Facts -
- Petitioner Kamlesh Kumar challenged the order dated 10.09.2023 whereby the State Tax Officer imposed a penalty of ₹10,67,450 under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act for alleged discrepancies in e-way bill details during transportation of aluminium roofing sheets.
- During vehicle inspection, the Department found that the e-way bill numbers mentioned in the tax invoices did not exactly match the e-way bills produced by the driver, as only a part of the invoice number was mentioned due to a typographical mistake. It is stated that in the tax invoice, instead of mentioning the number of e-way bill as “32/(23-24)”, it was mentioned as “32”, and in place of e-way bill No. “33/(23-24)”, it was mentioned as “33”.
- The petitioner argued that the discrepancy was a human error covered by the CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018, which prescribes only a nominal penalty for minor mistakes and relied upon an earlier Uttarakhand High Court decision on similar facts.
- The Department itself admitted that the goods matched the declarations in the e-way bill and there was no discrepancy in the transported goods, leading the petitioner to seek quashing of the penalty order.
Issue -
- Whether a minor typographical error in the e-way bill details, without any intention to evade tax or cause revenue loss, can attract penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act.
Order -
- The High Court observed that the mismatch in the e-way bill details was merely a human or typographical error. The Revenue failed to establish that the petitioner gained any undue benefit or attempted to evade payment of tax because of the mistake.
- The Court relied on its earlier decision in M/s Sonal Automation Industries and the CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018, holding that minor clerical errors should be treated as exceptions and should not automatically result in proceedings under Section 129.
- The Court further noted that the Department had admitted the goods transported were exactly as declared in the e-way bill and accompanying documents. Since there was no mismatch in the goods or any revenue implication, invocation of Section 129 was unjustified.
- Accordingly, the Court quashed the penalty order, allowed the writ petition, and directed refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner after deducting the nominal penalty payable under Clause 5 of the CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018.
