The snapshot covers Judgement on levy of penalty in case wherein there is
-Difference In Quantity,
-Difference in Name of Recipient,
-Incorrect Mentioning of date of Invoice.
Difference In Quantity
Raghav Metals v. State of Haryana  141 taxmann.com 179 (Punjab & Haryana)
Authority had pointed out that on physical verification that the actual quantity and the quantity shown in Invoice and e-way bill were different. Actual quantity was found to be 90 kgs. 700 gms. more than what has been found as per Invoice. It was observed by the High Court that from perusal of the e-Invoice, quantity of consigned goods was shown to be 10430.7 kilograms. An amount of Rs. 1276717.68/- has been paid as tax on the consignment whereas as per the State, it was 10520 kilograms. The said difference in weight was less than 1%. As per State, the alleged evasion shall not be more than Rs. 11000/-.
Difference in Name of Recipient
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) (P.) Ltd.  133 taxmann.com 165 (SC)
SLP filed against the order of the High Court was dismissed wherein assessee imported goods from USA and its clearing agent, while sending goods from Customs Station to assessee’s place of business, entered erroneous name and address of recipient in e-way bill. High Court in its decision in Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) (P.) Ltd. v. State of M.P  133 taxmann.com 164 (Madhya Pradesh) held that in the instant case, department was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the mistake committed while generating the E-way bill, was not a clerical error or a small mistake. High Court had directed the department to consider the case of the petitioner for imposition of a minor penalty, treating it to be a clerical mistake, as per Circular, dated 14-9-2018 No. CBEC/20/16/03/2017-GST issued by the Ministry of Finance-
Name of the Recipient and Supplier Swapped
Satguru Impex v. State of Tripura  141 taxmann.com 116 (TRIPURA)
The Court observed that there was an apparent mistake in the original E-way bill, i.e. the name of the seller and the buyer had been erroneously swapped and, therefore, the Revenue was justified in not allowing the vehicle to enter into the State. However, once the corrected E-way bill was produced and the apparent error having been corrected and there was no dispute that the parties were genuine and nor was there any dispute that the original E-way bill contained an error, it was held that there was no justification in either initiating the present proceedings against the petitioner or in continuing with the seizure of the vehicle along with goods.
Entering the name of the recipient as the name of the supplier is a minor mistake covered by Circular Dated 14-09-2018
Create Consults v. State of Madhya Pradesh  141 taxmann.com 526 (Madhya Pradesh)
The description of generator of e-way bill was wrongly mentioned and it was generated in the name of petitioner and, resultantly, all the orders impugned were passed while treating the present petitioner to be dispatcher of the goods and the statutory liability was fastened upon the petitioner by way of the order of imposition of tax as well as penalty.
Error in mentioning consignee as unregistered person in E-way Bill
ABCO Trades (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer  120 taxmann.com 180 (Kerala)
Although e-way bill showed the consignee as an unregistered person, the invoice that accompanied the transportation clearly referred to the GSTIN of the consignee and hence, the mere mention of the consignee as an unregistered person in the e-way bill cannot be of any significance. Secondly, it is stated that the mention of the tax applicable in the delivery challan was by mistake for it is evident that when the goods are stock transferred and not sold, there need not be a payment of tax at all.
Error in mentioning date although not specifically covered by Circular Dated 14-09-2018 but held to be insignificant as no intent to evade
Greenlights Power Solutions v. State Tax Officer  140 taxmann.com 295 (Kerala)
In the instant case, it was only on the date of invoice which is shown as 3-2-2021 while that shown in the e-way bill was 2-3-2021.