Bona fide explanation for e-Sugam and invoice mismatch upheld; no perversity found in deleting penalty for discrepancy.

Penalty for a minor mismatch between e-Sugam particulars and the invoice on value and quantity was upheld as deleted because the discrepancy was plausibly explained as arising from earlier generation of the e-Sugam document and an unreported goods shortage by the consignor. The Tribunal treated the explanation as bona fide and found no material showing evasion from the difference alone. The High Court found no perversity or legal error in that factual appreciation and held that no question of law arose for interference, so the deletion of penalty stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty arising from a minor discrepancy between the e-Sugam and the invoice as to value and quantity of goods.

Analysis: The discrepancy was explained as having arisen because the e-Sugam particulars were generated earlier than the final invoice and because the consignor had not informed the assessee about shortage of goods. The Tribunal accepted the explanation as bona fide and plausible, and held that the material on record did not justify an inference of evasion merely from the difference in quantity and value. The High Court found no perversity or legal error in that appreciation of facts and held that the order did not raise any question of law requiring interference.

Conclusion: The deletion of penalty was upheld and the revision petition was dismissed in favour of the assessee.

---