Date……………

To,

…………………………………..,

…………………………………..,

…………………………………..

Sir/Madam,

Sub:-  Difference in supplies made through e-way bill and that shown in GSTR-1

We ………………………, holding GSTIN- …………………….. are in receipt of a notice issued by you in reference to the above subject matter “Difference in supply” on dated ………….

In the said notice your good self has cited that we have shown less supply as compared to e-way bill generated by us and as shown in GSTR-1 filed by us and in some cases there is difference in value of supply in both the documents.

In this connection we would like to state that E-way bill is required to be generated under rule 138(1) in following cases-

“(1) Every Registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees-

(i) in relation to a supply; or

(ii) for reasons other than supply; or

(iii) due to Inward supply from an unregistered person, shall, before commencement of such movement, furnish information relating to the said goods as specified in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01, electronically, on the Common portal along with such other information as may be required on the Common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal:

Provided that the transporter, on an authorization received from the Registered person, may furnish information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01, electronically, on the Common portal along with such other information as may be required on the Common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal:

Provided further that where the goods to be transported are supplied through an ecommerce operator or a Courier agency, on an authorization received from the consignor, the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 may be furnished by such e-commerce operator or Courier agency and a unique number will be generated on the said portal:

Provided also that where goods are sent by a principal located in one State or Union territory to a job worker located in any other State or Union territory, the e-way bill shall be generated either by the principal or the job worker, if registered, irrespective of the value of the consignment:

Provided also that where handicraft goods are transported from one State or Union territory to another State or Union territory by a person who has been exempted from the requirement of obtaining registration under clauses (i) and (ii) of section 24, the e-way bill shall be generated by the said person irrespective of the value of the consignment.

Explanation 1: For the purposes of this rule, the expression -handicraft goods has the meaning as assigned to it in the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, notification No. 56/2018-Central Tax, dated the 23rd October, 2018, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R 1056 (E), dated the 23rd October, 2018 as amended from time to time.

Explanation 2: For the purposes of this rule, the consignment value of goods shall be the value, determined in accordance with the provisions of section 15, declared in an invoice, a bill of supply or a delivery challan, as the case may be, issued in respect of the said consignment and also includes the central tax, State or Union territory tax, integrated tax and cess charged, if any, in the document and shall exclude the value of Exempt supply of goods where the invoice is issued in respect of both exempt and Taxable supply of goods.

Apart from the above the supplier of goods is not required to generate e-way bill in circumstances specified in Rule 138(14) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

On the basis of above facts, we submit our reply as under:-

1. There is no discrepancy in supplies shown in e-way bill portal and as shown in GSTR-1 filed by us during the year. The complete reconciliation is enclosed for your kind perusal. The difference is due to one e-way bill supply for which is shown in GSTR-1 filed in next financial year but before September/ November of the next financial year u/s 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. One difference pointed by you against invoice number…………………….. dated………… e-way bill number…………………….. is only due to return of goods in the same period and the same is not disclosed by us in our GSTR-1. Documentary evidence for sales return is enclosed for your kind perusal.
3. The difference pointed out by you is the case of generation of duplicate e-way bill due to non-cancellation of the e-way bill after expiry of the time specified under rule 138. This fact was also reported to you immediately vide our letter dated………………Copy of letter duly received by you is enclosed.
4. The difference pointed by you is due to duplicate generation of e-way bill by the transporter by mistake. You will find the in e-way bill number……………………..and e-way bill number……………………..same details of vehicle number, invoice number and quantity are mentioned which is done by the mistake of the transporter. A confirmation letter from the transporter is also enclosed for your record. You can also verify this fact from the consignee’s record also.
5. We would like to state that e-way bill data is not the final data whereas the data reported in GSTR-1/GSTR-3B is much reliable and final. In the initial period of its implementation some mistakes were bound to happen by our staff also and this difference is only due to ignorance of the staff. There is no revenue loss to the exchequer. Therefore, you are requested to drop the matter.
6. The difference is only due to clerical error and that is only a technical mistake. In many cases it is decided by various High Courts that on the basis of these clerical or technical errors no action under Rule 138 can be taken against the dealer. In support of our claim we cite following judgements:-
7. It is palpably clear that the goods were accompanied with the relevant invoices, bilty documents and the e-way bills contain the correct address of the destination and only four out of eight of the e-way bills had the incorrect address. In such a case, no presumption to evade tax arises at all. The mere technical error committed by the petitioner cannot result in imposition of such harsh penalty upon the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the penalty imposed is without any basis in law, and therefore, impugned penalty order and the order passed in appeal are quashed and set aside.-HAWKINS COOKERS LTD. vs. STATE OF U.P.(ALL-HC) :(2024) 74 TLC(GST) 068
8. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of demand of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act. There is a post facto inclusion of the address, which was mentioned in the tax invoice raised by the supplier and in the E-way Bill. This court inclined to quash the impugned order, as there is no attempt to evade tax- ALGAE LABS PVT. LTD. vs. STATE TAX OFFICER-I, TIRUNELVELI  (MAD-HC) :(2022) 52 TLC(GST) 006

iii. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is no intention to evade tax as the petitioner has generated E-way bill by declaring the consignee as its additional place of business. Considering the fact that there is only a technical breach committed by the petitioner and there is no intention to evade tax, this court inclined to quash the impugned order and allow this writ petition by directing the respondent to release the vehicle and the consignment to the petitioner, if the same has not been released already.- SMART ROOFING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INT), MADURAI (MAD-HC) :(2022) 51 TLC(GST) 089

1. The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax. NE EQUIPMENT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS. (TRI-HC) :(2021) 44 TLC (GST) 010

Our Submission—

1. We humbly submit that the impugned notice has been issued based on incorrect understanding of the facts and incorrect application of the provision under law.
2. We have not escaped any turnover in violation of provisions of the CGST Act.
3. We humbly request your good self to consider the above submissions and drop the proceeding under the said notice. We pray for a personal hearing on the matter and submit that the above grounds are without prejudice to one another.

Thanking You,

………………………………….

……………………………………..

Need help with GST appeals or filing documentation?
Visit www.companymitra.com – your trusted partner for GST, ITR, and business compliance services