Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit -- The petitioner challenged the final order under section 129(3) issued in Form MOV-09, imposing a tax of Rs. 27,540/- and an equivalent amount as penalty. The goods were detained on noticing an irregularity in the e-way bill. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the goods were being transported on 02-03-2021 (2nd March, 2021) the invoice mentioned the date as 03.02.2021 (3rd February, 2021). The error occurred due to the default computer formatting system. Due to the irregularity in the invoice, the goods were detained and tax and penalty was demanded. The court observed that based on representations received pointing out the imposition of penalty even in cases of minor discrepancies in the invoice/e-way bill etc. and despite the absence of major irregularities in those documents, the CBIC has issued a Circular No.64/38/2018 dated 14-09-2018. This Circular was to mitigate the hardships being caused to taxpayers for minor discrepancies, which had no bearing on the liability to tax or on the nature of goods being transported. The circular is statutory in nature and is binding on the Tax Officers. The present situation is not covered by the six instances mentioned in the Circular. The situation in the present case can be even brought under the broader umbrage of clause (d) of para 5 of the Circular. The error noticed is insignificant and not of any consequence for invoking the power conferred under section 129 of the Act to impose tax and penalty.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order and directed the first respondent to reconsider the same in the light of the Circular and the observations in this Judgment and issue fresh orders, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within thirty days.