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.

[Shilpi Jain]

No intention to evade GST, no penalty. At the most this could be regarded as an error!!

You could consider taking the order and appealing against it.

[Shilpi Jain]

If the officer on road does not agree to your contention of error or no tax evasion and so no penalty (which 99% would be the case) you have no choice but to appeal against the order.

[HimangshuKumar Ray]

thanks. Is there any case laws on this facts.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Sh.Ray Ji,

Since there is no revenue loss at all, so you can take shelter of case laws pertaining to human error/typographical error decided in favour of the assessee. Such errors were committed while preparing E-way bills. Such case laws are easily available on TMI website.

[HimangshuKumar Ray]

Thank you sir.

[Padmanathan KV]

What is the description of goods that is written in the e-way bill & e-invoice?

does it co-relate in some way with the actual goods that you have mentioned such as M.S. Pati, Shutter strips, Side plate etc?

is it merely a case where officer says "shutter profile" ought to have been mentioned as "shutter strips"?

Is the 6/8 digit HSN codes mentioned corrected? if so, then officer has no case at all as nomenclature may vary.

Also, try to take shelter of Circular 68/38/2019-GST dtd 14-09-2018.

[HimangshuKumar Ray]

The case is allowed by Hon'ble DB at Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashok Sharma reported in TMI, 2025 (2) TMI 1002 (Calcutta High Court)

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.