SONAL AUTOMATION INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short issue engages consideration in the present Writ Petition, where the petitioner has given a challenge to the order dtd. 20/8/2019, which had been passed by respondent No. 3, while exercising his power under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, as well as the appellate order dtd. 28/11/2019, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and consequently, affirming the imposition of the penalty, as it has been imposed by respondent No. 3; by the impugned order dtd. 20/8/2019, to the tune of Rs.6,84,000.00.

(2.) It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that if the impugned order itself is taken into consideration, and particularly, the details, which had been provided therein, the only reason which has been assigned for invocation of Sec. 129, had arisen because of the fact, that in the description of the invoice, the petitioner had escaped to refer the alphabetical figures, which was given therein, i.e. SAI/V235, but so far as other details required in the invoice document are concerned, pertaining to the tax invoice, the parties to the Writ Petition, are not in quarrel at all that the other details, for example, pertaining to the number of the way bill, the date of the way bill, the mode of delivery of the goods, the goods consigned, which was being carried, the vehicle number, in which it was being carried, all those details were correctly entered into the document supplied by the petitioner by way of GST MOV-07, except for the fact, that the invoice number was wrongfully mentioned as "235" instead of "SAI/V/235".

(3.) The argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is, that the said inadvertent error, which has chanced while giving the description of the invoice number, may not be read to a disadvantage, to him for the purposes of imposing the penalty of Rs.6,84,000.00 because once the other figures, which were given therein commensurated to the transaction, given in the tax invoice and which is not disputed, it never intended to deceive the State of the revenue, which otherwise the petitioner was liable to pay, due to the transaction, which was referred to in the tax invoice.