Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit ––- The petitioner challenged the orders dated 05.09.2019 and 27.05.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority and adjudicating Authority. The petitioner submitted that the address on the E-way bill was mentioned at registered office of the consignee at Indore, instead of Bhopal and thus, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the Act, 2017. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the mistake while generating E-way bill was an inadvertent human error and there was no intention to evade the tax liability. The court observed that the issue in question has already been decided vide order dated 04.02.2021 in the matter of M/s Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of M.P. and others. The mistake in question being bonofide.

Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders and further directed that the respondents will be at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty, while treating the mistake in question, to be a clerical mistake as per Circular dated 14.09.2018.