Typographical Error in E-way bill - Should Penalty be Imposed?

As we know that before the movement of goods the e-way bill is required to be generated, non generation of e-way bill can lead to a penalty u/s 129 of CGST Act during the transit. However while generating the e-way bill on the e-way bill portal, sometimes the typographical or clerical errors are made like the error in mentioning the distance, error in mentioning the vehicle number, error in the mentioning invoice number etc. In this article we will make a detailed discussion about whether a penalty can be levied for such typographical errors done without the intention to evade tax? or whether imposing the penalty in such a case is valid under law?

When Penalty under Section 129 is leviable:

Section 129(1) states that where any person transports any goods or stores any goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules while they are in transit then all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released, on payment of penalty.

Thus from section 129(1) it is clear that when the provisions of act or rules for transportation of goods are violated then the penalty should be levied during transit. If any typological or clerical error is done unintentionally then the penalty u/s 129 should not be leviable subject to the condition that there is no evasion of tax due to this error.

For example, if any typing error is made in mentioning the distance in the e-way bill like 25 K.m are shown as 125 k.m. in the e-way bill. However, the valuation of goods are done properly as per section 15 of CGST Act 2017 and the classification of goods are also done properly as per provisions of the Custom Tariff. Thus there is no tax evasion in this case, hence the penalty u/s 129 should not be levied in this case.

In other words, typing mistakes on E-way Bill where full and correct tax has been paid should not lead to detention of goods along with levy of penalty.

The same was also clarified by the CBIC vide Circular No. 64/38/2018 that in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated in the following situations:

Judicial Pronouncements:
There are various case laws in which it was held that no penalty can be levied when there is no intention to evade tax. Some the judgements are summarised as follows;

1. Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics Versus State of UP and others [2024(01)LCX0045] the facts of the case were that the consignment of goods was intercepted and the seizure order was passed on the ground that the vehicle number in Part-B of the e-way bill was incorrect. In the present case, instead of ‘5332’, ‘3552’ was incorrectly entered into the e-way bill which clearly appears to be a typographical error. Thus, the court was of the view that imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act is without jurisdiction and illegal in law and held that a typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not lead to imposition of penalty. Thus, impugned order was quashed and set aside.

2. Sabitha Riyaz Versus Union of India [2018(10)LCX0013] the facts of the case were that the goods were detained on the ground that in the e-way bill the distance was shown as 280 Kms. instead of 2800 Kms. The Kerala High Court held that this is the case of typographical error and therefore such minor errors do not have serious impact. The distance between Kerala and Uttarakhand is a matter of record and this can be verified independently.

3. SL Yadav Cranes Private Limited Versus State of U.P. [2025(03)LCX0088] wherein the goods were transported with a valid e-way bill and delivery challan. However, a typographical error in the vehicle number on the e-way bill led to the penalty. The petitioner argued that the error was minor and did not warrant a penalty. Despite submitting a reply explaining the mistake and proving ownership of the goods, the penalty was imposed. The respondent's counsel argued that the discrepancy in the vehicle number justified the penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. However, the Court referred to the M/s. Halder Enterprises case, which established that when valid documents are produced, the goods should be treated as belonging to the owner, and the penalty should not be imposed under Section 129(1)(b), but rather under Section 129(1)(a). Applying this principle, the Court quashed the order, ruling that the penalty was unjustified. It directed the authorities to release the goods under Section 129(1)(a) and allowed the petitioner to pursue further legal remedies for other issues. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

4. Vishnu Singh Versus State of Up [2025(02)LCX0068] wherein due to technical mistake, at the time of generating the e-way bill, tax invoice number has been wrongly mentioned due to human error. The vehicle along with goods was intercepted and seized on the ground that the different tax invoice number mentioned in the e-way bill. The Court held that an incorrect invoice number entered in an e-way bill is a minor human error and should not result in seizure and penalty when all other accompanying documents are valid.

5. Hawkins Cooker Versus State Of U.P. [2024(02)LCX0310] in said case the petitioner purchased/stock transferred various parts/raw materials from outside the state of UP, for being delivered in its factory. In four out of the 8 E-Way bills, the place of supply was correctly mentioned to be the factory of the petitioner and in other 4 it has been wrongly mentioned to be the principal place of business (registered office) of the petitioner. The goods were intercepted and the memo of detention was issued and subsequently the goods were seized. The mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner. Thus, the Court held that the penalty imposed in this case is without any basis in law and accordingly, impugned penalty order and the order passed in appeal are quashed and set aside.

Conclusion: In case of Typographical or clerical errors in e-way bills the penalty u/s 129 should not be imposed during transit subject to the condition that there is no intention to evade tax.

Disclaimer: The information given in this article is solely for purpose of understanding the law. It is completely based on the interpretation of the author and cannot be constituted as a legal advise, the author of this article and Lawcrux team is not responsible for any legal issues if arises on the basis of the interpretation given above.