Escorts Kubota to appeal Rs 20-lakh tax penalty from 'minute clerical error'

On January 9, Allahabad High Court had ruled that a typographical error alone won't be enough to levy penalty by tax authorities

Trade

• Watchlist
• Portfolio
• Message
• Set Alert

 

 

live

• bselive
• nselive

Volume

Todays L/H

More

×

Escorts Kubota attributed a minute clerical error to a tax penalty of over Rs 20 lakh. In a filing to the exchanges, the company said that it would file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Escorts Kubota's filing on January 11 said that the Assistant Commissioner, GST Department, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh has imposed two penalties on the company through orders dated January 10 and January 11 this year.

Also read: LIC receives GST bill of over Rs 290 crore from the Bihar tax department

The January 10 order raised a penalty of Rs 17.37 lakh and the January 11 order raised a penalty of Rs 2.9 lakh.

According to the company, both the orders were "on account of a minute clerical error in the customer address mentioned on the tax invoice".

The company's filing added that the order was "unwarranted" and "incorrect" and that it would file an appeal against it.

On January 11, another company also cited clerical error leading to a tax penalty.

In an exchange filing, Indus Towers said that it had received a tax penalty of Rs 2.03 lakh from the Assistant Commissioner, Uttarakhand.

Giving the details, the company's filing stated that the penalty was levied at the time of movement of goods due to a mismatch in details on account of clerical error.

Indus Towers' filing added that the company will challenge the order at the appellate authority and that there is no material impact from the penalty on the financials, operations or other activities of the company.

Also read: Govt takes stringent action against fraudulent firms, identifies 29,273 bogus entities in GST scam crackdown

Only two days earlier, on January 9, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a typographical error on the e-way bill without any other evidence to show an intent to evade taxes would not attract a penalty under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The court was ruling on a case involving a cosmetics dealer who was transporting goods to another dealer, when the vehicle was intercepted and the e-way bill was found to have had the vehicle number wrong--DL1 AA 3552 instead of DL1 AA 5332.