SABITHA RIYAZ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a trader, transported natural rubber. After generating e-way bill, she sent a consignment to Uttarakhand, with all the relevant records. But it was seized by the State Tax Officer, Uttarakhand, the additional 11th respondent. The ground for detention is that in the e-way bill the distance between Kerala and the destination at Uttarakhand was shown as 280 Kms, instead of 2800 Kms. To have this evident error corrected, the petitioner could have taken recourse to Rule 138 (9) of the CGST Rules. That correction, however, could be possible only within 24 hours.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel submits that this is a typographical error. And the petitioner noticed it only when the 11th respondent intercepted the goods and inspected the documents. According to the learned counsel, the 7th respondent, the authority concerned in Kerala, could either permit the petitioner to generate a new e-way bill or certify that the error is clerical. In reply, the Standing Counsel submits that since the entire system is online, the 7th respondent could not correct the error, at this stage. He also submits that there is no provision in the Rules for such correction, either.

(3.) That apart, the learned Standing Counsel submits that a certificate, as sought by the petitioner from the 7th respondent, is also not possible because the Authority has no such power conferred on him. At any rate, he too felt that the mistake is genuine, evident, and needs correction, in the interest of justice.