Wrong PIN Code in E-Way Bill Can’t Trigger GST Seizure When Address Is Correct: HC:

High Court quashes GST seizure and penalty where only error was incorrect PIN code in e-way bill, holding it a minor clerical lapse protected under Section 126.
Allahabad High Court Holds Clerical Error in “Bill to–Ship to” Transactions Falls Under Section 126 Protection

Wrong PIN Code in E-Way Bill Can’t Trigger GST Seizure When Address Is Correct: HC
The petitioner, a GST-registered proprietorship firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of threshing machinery, supplied goods to M/s Baba Hans Construction Pvt. Ltd. under a “bill to–ship to” transaction. A tax invoice and e-way bill were duly generated, and goods were transported with all requisite documents, including GRs.
During transit, the goods were intercepted and seized on the ground that the place of delivery mentioned in the e-way bill was incorrect. While the “ship to” address correctly mentioned Samastipur, Bihar, the PIN code of Patna was inadvertently entered instead of Samastipur. No discrepancy was found in the nature, quantity, or value of the goods. Proceedings were initiated under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, resulting in seizure and penalty orders, which were challenged in the present writ petition.
Issue Raised: Whether proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act can be sustained when the only discrepancy in the e-way bill is an incorrect PIN code, despite the correct address of the consignee being mentioned and no intent to evade tax being established.
HC's Ruling: The Allahabad High Court held that the seizure and penalty were wholly unjustified. The Court observed that the transaction was a valid “bill to–ship to” movement supported by all statutory documents and that the incorrect PIN code was a mere clerical error without any mala fide intent.
The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 129 cannot be initiated where the address of the consignor or consignee is correct and the wrong PIN code does not extend the validity of the e-way bill. The error was held to be protected under Section 126 of the CGST Act as a minor procedural lapse. Hence, the impugned seizure and penalty orders were quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with a direction to refund any amount deposited.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2255My Recent Articles
- ITAT Allows Section 80-IE Deduction on Enhanced Business Income After Assessment AdditionPremium
- India Notifies India-Sri Lanka DTAA Protocol Introducing Principal Purpose Test
- ITAT: Entire Gross Receipts of Trust Cannot Be Taxed Despite Section 11 DenialPremium
- ITAT Quashes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty After Original Assessment Was Set AsidePremium
- ITAT Remands Rs 36.60 Crore TP Adjustment in Veolia Intra-Group Services CasePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








