Inadvertent e-way bill discrepancies cannot trigger detention penalties where goods match records and no tax avoidance is established.

A mismatch between invoice particulars and e-way bills caused by human or typographical error does not justify detention and penalty under Section 129 where the goods match the e-way bill declarations and accompanying documents. The Department admitted that the goods corresponded with those records, and no tax avoidance or benefit to the petitioner was shown. Such inadvertent documentary errors fall within the circular's prescribed treatment and attract only the applicable nominal penalty. The penalty order was quashed, and the deposited amount was directed to be refunded after deduction of that nominal penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether a mismatch between the e-way bill particulars stated in the tax invoices and the e-way bills carried with the goods justified detention and penalty under Section 129.

Analysis: The discrepancy was a human and typographical error. The goods corresponded with the declarations in the e-way bills and accompanying documents, a fact admitted by the Department. No benefit to the petitioner or avoidance of tax was demonstrated. The error therefore fell within the circular's treatment of inadvertent documentary mistakes, for which only the prescribed nominal penalty was applicable.

Conclusion: Invocation of Section 129 and the penalty imposed thereunder were unsustainable; the impugned penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable nominal penalty.

---