Remedy for GST Scrutiny Notice – Single EWB Mismatch with GSTR-1 Due to Part-B Not Updated

[Rajagopal K]

Dear Experts,

A GST Scrutiny Show Cause Notice has been received for FY 2021-22 due to a mismatch between the E-Way Bill (EWB) turnover and GSTR-1 turnover for the month of October 2021.

Issue in Brief:

• Only one E-Way Bill is involved in this case.
• The EWB was generated, but due to an oversight, Part-B (vehicle details) was not updated.
• However, the goods were successfully delivered to the recipient, and there was no interception or detention by the GST authorities.
• The corresponding invoice was correctly reported in both GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and tax was fully paid.
• Since Part-B was not updated, this EWB was excluded from the system-calculated EWB turnover, causing a mismatch with GSTR-1, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice.

Requesting expert guidance on the following:

1. What is the most appropriate remedy or defense in this case of a single EWB with Part-B not updated, where tax has been properly paid?
2. Can this be considered a procedural lapse without intent to evade tax, and thus not warranting a penalty?
3. What kind of justification or documentation should be provided in the reply to the SCN?
4. Are there any relevant CBIC circulars, case laws, or precedents that may be referred to in the reply?

Looking forward to your valuable insights.

Thank you.

AI Summary

Request waiver/rectification for procedural lapse: Part-B vehicle details not updated despite invoice, tax paid, goods delivered A concise reply should state the mismatch arose from a one-off procedural lapse (Part-B vehicle details not updated) while the invoice was reported, tax paid, and goods delivered without detention; submit documentary proof (invoice, GSTR-1/GSTR-3B returns, transport documents, delivery receipt/POD, EWB Part-A printout, transporter acknowledgements, and an affidavit explaining the oversight) and request cancellation/rectification or waiver of penalty as a bona fide error. Emphasize absence of tax evasion or interception, propose correction steps taken, and seek limited relief under principles recognizing procedural mistakes. Also rely on available CBIC circulars and case law that distinguish inadvertent procedural lapses from willful evasion when framing the legal reply.