No Detention and seizure of goods for minor mistake in eway bill

Minor Mistake in eway bill

Sec 129 provide for detention and seizure of goods and conveyances and their release on the payment of requisite tax and penalty in cases where such goods are transported in contravention of the provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder. Now, for minor mistake in eway bill, action under section 129 will not be taken.

It has been informed that proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act are being initiated for every mistake in the documents.

It is clarified that in case a consignment of goods is accompanied by an invoice or any other specified document and not an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may be initiated.

  1. In case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the following situations: Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; 
  2. 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;
  3. Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct;
  4. Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill;
  5. 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;
  6. Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number. 

Penalties

Penalty to the tune of Rs. 500/- each under section 125 of the CGST Act and the respective State GST Act should be imposed (Rs.1000/- under the IGST Act) in FORM GST DRC-07 for every consignment.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and VJM & Associates LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Related Post
MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form
Others
CA. Kavit Vijay

MCA imposed Penalty for failure to issue and transfer shares in Demat form

As per Section 29(1A) of Companies Act read with Rule 9A of The Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014, every unlisted public company shall ensure that before issuance of any securities entire holding of securities of its promoters, directors, key managerial personnel has been dematerialised in accordance with provisions of the Depositories Act 1996. Further,  every shareholder of an unlisted public company is required to dematerialise its securities before transfer, if such transfer is made on or after 2nd October, 2018.

Read More »
Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest
Judgements
CA. Sachin Jindal

Proceedings can’t be initiated under Section 74 when tax liability is already discharged along with interest

The petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of electricity through solar plants. The GST returns filed by the petitioner for the period of July, 2017 to March, 2019 were subject to audit. The petitioner was informed about tax liability during audit proceedings on account of wrong availment of ITC and ITC availed with respect to exempted supply. Upon receipt of initial audit observation, the petitioner discharged the entire tax liability alongwith interest. The final audit report was issued much after payment of GST liability. Post audit, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 74 of CGST Act and confirmed the demand through DRC-07. The petitioner contended that it falls under purview of Section 73(1) and 73(5) of CGST Act and therefore, SCN under section 74 is not sustainable. Whereas, the respondent contended that this is the case of fraud and willful misstatement.

Read More »

V J M & Associates LLP

Contact Us

X