The different amounts mentioned in the tax invoice and e-Way Bill indicate a palpable error in the waybill, which may be construed as a human error, Orissa High Court ruled.
The assessment order would have been cancelled by the bench of Justice B.R. Sarangi and Justice M.S. Raman and remitted the case back to the assessing authority for reconsideration as per the statute.
The taxpayer asks for the direction to set aside the demand and Form GST DRC-07, for cancelling the attachment of the bank account of the applicant and to permit the applicant to furnish the answer to the show cause notice.
For an amount of Rs. 1,97,047.86, the applicant has generated the tax invoice that was levied to tax. It was a self-generated document but he does not have a computer. He would be needed to generate the computer bill under the statute. As per that, an e-way bill was made where the total amount subject to tax was specified to be Rs 197047086 and was a typographical error.
Read Also: HC: GST E Waybill Differences Refer Question of Fact, First Appeal Before U/S 107
The applicant argued that the figure was tallying, and the paise would be entered in rupees, which develops issues on the applicant’s end as he is a small dealer and does not contain any taxable amount of Rs Rs. 197047086.00. Correcting the human error that was made is necessary.
According to the information in the authority’s possession, the assessment order was made by the assessing authority under Section 74 of the OGST Act with intimation through DRC-01A for the cause of less submission of a return for the period 2019-20. There was no reaction to the indication for which the GST DRC-01 online notification was sent. As a result, if the petitioner contacts the evaluating authority, the assessing authority may review the assessment order in line with the law.
The court ruled that the sum was specified in the tax invoice as Rs. 1,970,407.86, but not in the GST e-Way Bill as Rs.197047086. If this fact is brought to the assessing authority’s knowledge, it can be examined in line with the law, and a new assessment order can be issued.
| Case Title | M/s. Jena Trading and Co. Versus CT and GST Officer |
| Citation | W.P.(C) No. 10627 of 2022 |
| Date | 23.03.2023 |
| Counsel for Appellant | R.P. Kar |
| Counsel for Respondent | Sunil Mishra |
| Orissa HC | Read Order |
