mismatch of type of goods in invoice, e-way bill with physical verification

[HimangshuKumar Ray]

Goods with vehicle detained, seizure order passed. Allegation is that quantity of goods same as stated in Tax invoice, e-waybill and in physical verification, officer found e-waybill, tax invoices, consignement note are in order, but type of goods not written properly in in invoice, e-waybill. Goods are MS Bar, TMT Bar and shutter profile, all goods rate @18%. Officer stated that goods ought to have written like M.S. Pati, Shutter strips, Side plate etc etc. My question is that RTP carrying goods with pro[er documents as per requirements of Rule 138, quantity i.e. weight matched, but for type of goods not written properly by giving break up, for these reason penalty is legal? if I would write goods by break up then also same rate of goods, there was no evasion of tax. Moreover e-invoice generated already reflected in GSTR-1. Kindly Answer by our Ld. experts.

AI Summary

Debate Over Justified Penalty for Description Discrepancy in Goods Despite Matching Tax Rate and Quantity A discussion on a forum centers around a mismatch between the type of goods listed on an invoice and e-way bill versus those found during a physical verification. The goods were detained despite the quantity matching the documents, as the officer noted discrepancies in the description. The primary question is whether a penalty is justified when there is no tax evasion and the goods are taxed at the same rate. Respondents suggest that this is likely an error rather than an evasion attempt, recommending an appeal against the order. Case laws and circulars supporting the argument of human error are mentioned.