- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Orissa High Court: Different Amounts Mentioned in Tax Invoices and e-Way Bill Indicates Palpable Error; Issues Fresh Assessment Order
Orissa High Court: Different Amounts Mentioned in Tax Invoices and e-Way Bill Indicates Palpable Error; Issues Fresh Assessment Order
The Orissa High Court by its division bench of Justices B.R. Sarangi and M.S. Raman while quashing an assessment order noting that different amounts were mentioned in tax invoices and e-way bill indicated palpable error, which may be construed as a human error.
The petitioner/assessee had sought direction to set aside the demand and Form GST DRC-07, to quash the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, and to allow the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice.
The petitioner had generated a tax invoice for an amount of Rs. 1,97,047.86 which was taxable, however it was a self-generated document and as per law he was required to generate the computer bill. Accordingly, an e-Way Bill was prepared in which the total taxable amount was shown to be Rs. 197047086 which was a typographical mistake.
The petitioner contended that though the figure was tallying, the paise had been entered in rupees, which had created difficulty on the part of the petitioner because he is a small dealer and cannot have a taxable amount of Rs. 197047086.00. The human error that has been committed has to be rectified.
Mr. S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that the assessment order has been passed by the assessing authority under Section 74 of the OGST Act with intimation through DRC-01A for the cause of less filing of return for the period of 2019-20, as per the information under possession of the authority, and whereas, no response received against the above-mentioned intimation for which online notice in DRC-01 was issued and, as such, no response was received on above. Therefore, in the event the petitioner approaches the assessing authority, the assessment order can be reconsidered by the said assessing authority in accordance with law.
The Court noted that in the tax invoice, the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 1,970,407.86, whereas in the e-Way Bill, it has been mentioned as Rs.197047086. If this fact was brought to the attention of the assessing authority, it can be considered in accordance with the law and a fresh assessment order can be passed.
Thus, the Court quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the assessing authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law.