Case Summary: M/S U.S. Metal Products vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case Details
- Name of Party:
M/S U.S. Metal Products (Petitioner) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2
Others (Respondents)
- Case No.:
WRIT TAX No. 1272 of 2022
- Date of Order:
8th April, 2025
- Court:
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Judge:
Hon’ble Justice Piyush Agrawal
Summary of the Case
The Allahabad High Court
allowed the writ petition filed by M/s U.S. Metal Products challenging the
penalty imposed due to a typographical error in the invoice number of the e-way
bill. The Court held that a minor error of one or two digits in the e-way bill
does not justify the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 129 of the
CGST Act, relying on CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018. The
entire proceedings, including the penalty and the appellate order, were
quashed.
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner is a registered firm
located in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, engaged in the manufacture of electrical
and automotive parts.
- On 6.12.2021, the petitioner raised Tax
Invoice No. 3063 for a supply to Syska LED Lights Pvt. Ltd.
- Goods were transported on 17.12.2021
via M/s Lalit Transport Corporation, accompanied by proper documentation.
- During transit through Uttar Pradesh,
the goods were intercepted.
- No issue was found with the quantity,
quality, or type of goods. The only discrepancy was that the e-way
bill incorrectly mentioned Invoice No. 3096 instead of 3063.
- The authorities passed a penalty
order, which was upheld by the appellate authority.
Submissions
Petitioner’s Submissions
- The penalty proceedings were
unjustified as the error was merely typographical.
- The petitioner relied on CBIC
Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018, specifically clause
5(d), which exempts minor errors in document numbers from penalty
under Section 129.
- Cited Supreme Court judgment in
Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries
[2008 (13) SCC 1], which held that CBIC circulars are binding on the
authorities.
Respondents’ Submissions
- The State’s representative (ACSC)
supported the penalty and the impugned orders.
- No substantial rebuttal of the
circular’s applicability was provided.
Findings and Judgment of
the Court
- The Court acknowledged that there was
no dispute regarding the nature, quality, or quantity of goods.
- The only error was a digitally
wrong invoice number in the e-way bill.
- As per clause 5(d) of the CBIC
Circular, such errors do not attract proceedings under Section
129 of CGST Act.
- Reiterated that circulars issued
by CBIC are binding on the tax authorities as per apex court rulings.
- Therefore, both the penalty and
the appellate orders were not sustainable in law.
Conclusion
The Hon’ble High Court:
- Allowed the writ petition.
- Quashed the impugned penalty order
dated 19.12.2021 and appellate order dated 16.04.2022.
- Directed that any amount deposited by
the petitioner should be refunded as per law.
Disclaimer: All
the Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority
information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our
best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
