Minor discrepancies in transport documentation do not warrant penalties under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with general penalties appropriately applied instead under Section 125.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or orders or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in Appeal No./GST/AP/14/2021 dated 23.11.2021 at Annexure-N confirming the orders passed by the 1^st Respondent dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure-G)

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to cancel the orders by them and further direct them to refund the sum of Rs.3,08,064/- being the penalty collected to the petitioner with interest.

OR

(c) Pass any other order or directions as the case may this Hon’ble High Court deemed fit under the circumstances.

(d) Allow the writ petition with cost.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/consigner purchased the subject goods vide Tax invoice, E-way bill and Stock Transfer Memo all dated 04.04.2021 and entrusted the subject goods to a transporter to transport the same in Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-19 AB-1413 from Mangalore to Kolar. It is contended that due to oversight and inadvertence, the registration number of the subject vehicle was mentioned as KA-19 A-1413 instead of KA-19 AB-1413 by omitting the letter ‘B’ in the documents and discrepancy in the HSN code and by describing the subject goods as ‘light blaze oil’ instead of ‘cashew nut shell oil’, which was purely a clerical error and a bonafide mistake contained in the documents.

4. On 04.04.2021 at about 06.15 P.M., the 1^st respondent intercepted the vehicle and inspected the same and recorded the statement of the driver, pursuant to which, physical verification of the conveyance and goods were conducted, resulting in issuance of notice under Section 129 (3) of the KGST Act by the 1^st respondent, who detained the conveyance and goods.

5. The petitioner filed his objections interalia disputing the allegations made by the 1^st respondent, in pursuance of which, the impugned penalty order dated 07.04.2021 was passed by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner, who made payment and filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent – Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order dated 23.11.2021, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

6. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the Circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the respondents, which reads as under:-

Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST

CBEC/2016/03/2017-GST

Government of India

Ministry of Finance

Department of Revenue

Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

GST Policy Wing ***

New Delhi, Dated the 14^th September, 2018

To,

The Principal Chief Commissioners / Chief Commissioners / Principal Commissioners / Commissioners of Central Tax (All)/The Principal Directors General /Directors General (All)

Madam/Sir,

Subject: Modification of the procedure for interception of conveyances for inspection of goods in movement, and detention, release and confiscation of such goods and conveyances, as clarified in Circular Nos. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 and 49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018 – regarding

Kind attention is invited to Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13th April, 2018 as amended by Circular No. 49/23/2018-GST dated 21st June, 2018 vide which the procedure for interception of conveyances for inspection of goods in movement, and detention, release and confisca