HC Quashes GST Penalty for One-Digit E-Way Bill-Invoice mismatch; Holds No Tax Evasion Without Mens Rea

The Allahabad High Court ruled in favour of the company whose goods were seized due to a minor clerical error in the e-way bill.

High Court Ruling on E-Way Bill Clerical Error

Nidhi | Jul 23, 2025 |

HC Quashes GST Penalty for One-Digit E-Way Bill-Invoice mismatch; Holds No Tax Evasion Without Mens Rea

HC Quashes GST Penalty for One-Digit E-Way Bill-Invoice mismatch; Holds No Tax Evasion Without Mens Rea

While transporting goods from one place to another, the transporters must have an e-way Bill, also known as Electronic Way bill, if the value of consignment exceeds a specified limit. It contains information such as details of the goods, the consignor, the recipient and the transporter, etc. The details between the e-way bill and invoice are verified by the tax authorities. Sometimes there are discrepancies between the details on the e-way bill and the e-invoice. But what if the discrepancy was caused due to a clerical mistake?

In a recent similar case, the Allahabad High Court has ruled in favour of the company whose goods were seized due to a minor clerical error in the e-way bill. The petitioner company, Gaylord Packers India Pvt. Ltd., manufactures polyester films. The company was transporting goods from Ghaziabad to Delhi, during which the goods were seized by tax authorities on 12.02.2019 due to a mismatch in the invoice number.

The invoice number mentioned on the tax invoice was 4671, which was different from the invoice number mentioned in the e-way bill (4670). As per the company, it was just a clerical error and there was no intention to evade tax. The company received two orders dated 22.02.2020 and 13.02.2019, due to the same. It challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court.

The high court observed the judgement passed in earlier cases, which held that “mens rea to evade tax is essential for imposition of penalty“. Another ruling stated that “A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to imposition of penalty“.

Since this was a minor mistake of just one digit difference and the company did not have any intention to evade tax, as all other details were correct in the e-way Bill, the High Court quashed the orders. The High Court also directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner must be refunded with 4% interest from the date of deposit.

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
Section 54 Deduction Can be Claimed Even Without Filing Original Return: ITAT ITAT: Once purchases are accepted, the related expenditure cannot be treated as unexplained Govt Removes Anti-Dumping Duty on Lithograde Aluminium Coils ITAT Chennai Sends Case Back for Re-verification as AO Not Given Opportunity ITAT Ahmedabad Gives Relief in Cash Deposit Case by Deleting Rs 11 Lakh AdditionView All Posts