Uttarakhand High Court
Kamlesh Kumar vs State Tax Officer on 15 July, 2026
UKHC010120922026
2026:UHC:5761-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
15TH JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 3268 OF 2023
Kamlesh Kumar ......Petitioner.
Versus
State Tax Officer ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Standing
Counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing
the order dated 10.09.2023, passed by the respondent
imposing penalty of Rs.10,67,450/- on the petitioner in
exercise of power under Section 129 of the CGST/ SGST
Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. The case of the Department is that it intercepted
vehicle No.HR 66C 7016 carrying aluminum roofing sheet
(HSN Code 7606) at Rampur Road near Rudrapur on
09.09.2023 at 08:30 AM and upon enquiry, the vehicle
driver produced the following documents:-
“(1) Tax Invoice No.32/(23-24) Date 6-9-2023 Rs.2193075-00
(2) Eway bill No. 201643090175 Date 6-9-2023
(3) Tax Invoice No. 33/(23-24) Date 6-9-2023 Rs.772065-00
(4) Eway bill No. 281643148449 Date 6-9-2023.”
1
UKHC010120922026
2026:UHC:5761-DB
3. It transpired therefrom that there was mismatch
in the details of e-way bills mentioned on the invoice and
the e-way bill produced by the driver. 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”.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had
issued a circular on 14th September, 2018 and wherein it
clarified that in cases of inadvertent mistakes and
typographical errors in the documents, penalty to the tune
of Rs.500/- each under Section 125 of CGST Act and
respective SGST Act should be imposed. He submits that it
was a case of human error and not where Section 129 could
have been invoked.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance
on the judgment of this Court dated 27.04.2022 in Writ
Petition (M/S) No.1969 of 2021, “M/s Sonal Automation
Industries vs. State of Uttarakhand & others“, which
was also a case of mismatch of e-way number on the tax
invoice. The Court, relying on the same circular, held that
powers under Section 129 could not have been invoked in
the circumstances of the said case. The relevant
2
UKHC010120922026
2026:UHC:5761-DB
observations are as follows:-
“8. This Court is of the view, that the implications of Clause 5 of
the Circular, has to be rationally and logically construed and when the
revenue was conscious, that a minor error may creep in while furnishing
the e-way bill and those minor discrepancies are to be overlooked and
Section 129, is not to be even invoked invariably, under all the
circumstances, where it does not affect the financial implications or the
liabilities, which has to be fastened upon the assessee under the Taxing
Laws.
9. The Sub-clauses referred therein to Clause 5, has to be
rationally construed and once the exception of mistake is considered to be
excused under Clause 5 of the Circular of 14th September, 2018, and
looking to the nature of the error, which has crept in, in the instant case, I
am of the view, that since it was not backed with a clever intent to
deceive the State of the revenue, and particularly, when the other figures
or entries provided by the petitioner by submission of the eway bill to the
respondents/revenue, it contained all the other particulars, which were
correct and corresponding to the details provided in the tax invoice, in
fact, there was no apparent intention, as such to deceive the State with
the revenue and hence, the error which has crept in giving the invoice
number would fall to be within an exception Clause 5 of the Circular of
14th September, 2018.”
6. We have examined the documents placed on
record as well as the explanation given by the petitioner in
response to the show-cause notice and we find that it was
case of human error and even the Revenue could not point
out how, as a result of said mistake, any benefit has
accrued to the petitioner or he had avoided payment of any
tax.
7. In Paragraph No.7 of the counter-affidavit, the
Department has admitted that the goods were found as per
the declaration in the e-way bill and the documents which
were being carried at the time of transportation of the
3
UKHC010120922026
2026:UHC:5761-DB
goods.
8. In such circumstances, the impugned order
cannot be sustained and is, hereby, quashed.
9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the
impugned order shall be refunded to him after deducting
the penalty as per clause 5 of the circular dated 14th
September, 2018.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dated: 15th July, 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT
Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00
KUMAR
ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A
055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2026.07.16 11:12:06 +05’30’
4
