One E-Way Bill for Multiple Invoices Acceptable: Allahabad HC Rules E-Way Bill’s Purpose is Goods Movt Disclosure, Minor Human Errors should not Attract Penalty [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court, while quashing the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) Order, held that issuance of a single e-way bill for multiple invoices is not fatal where all documents were available and there was no evidence of tax evasion. Also, ruled that mere human errors should not attract harsh penalties.

The petitioner’s consignment of cables from Delhi to Sultanpur was intercepted on the ground that against four invoices, only one e-way bill had been generated, with minor differences in invoice dates.

The authorities treated this as a contravention and imposed a penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act, which was upheld in appeal. The petitioner contended that all invoices, GR, and an e-way bill were present, the total value was disclosed, and there was no concealment, making it at best a technical error without any intent to evade tax.

The State argued that Rule 138 of the CGST Rules required a separate e-way bill for each invoice, and therefore the petitioner had violated the statutory mandate. It was found that for four tax invoices, one e-way bill was issued on 22.8.2018, where one of the found invoices, the date has been mentioned as 20.8.2018 and in other three tax invoices the date has been mentioned as 21.8.2018.

The bench found that all tax invoices, goods receipts, and an e-way bill covering the total value of goods were available at the time of interception. There was no mismatch in the goods or quantity, and the e-way bill had not been cancelled.

The Court said that the “Under the GSTregime, every documents are available on the Government portal. The purpose of e-way bill is to let the department know that the particular movement of goods were undertaken by the registered dealer, so that at the time of making assessment, no escapement of tax can be done. It is nobody's case that after issuance of e-way bill, the same was cancelled or after seizure the same was cancelled within the prescribed period therein.”

“Once e-way bill was accompanying the goods, intend to evade payment of tax cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is apparently a technical error for which the petitioner should not be penalised until and unless there is cogent material to show that the petitioner has an intention to evade payment of tax” said the bench.

Accordingly, the bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal quashed the penalty order and directed refund of any deposit. It reiterated that human error in generating e-way bills cannot be the sole basis for punitive action.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates