RAVISH KUMAR SINGH vs M/S MANI PLY

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Court No. Court I
APL/239/LCK/2026
RAVISH KUMAR SINGH
.............Appellant
Versus
M/S MANI PLY, PROPRIETOR, NEAR BANGLA BAZAR BHADRUKH
SHARDA NAGAR UPLUC 226002 .............Respondent
Quorum
Hon’ble Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant
MR. ASHUTOSH MISHRA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SGST
Counsel for Respondent
SHRI. R.K. PANDEY, ADVOCATE
Form GST APL-04A
[See rules 113(1) & 115]
Summary of the order and demand after issue of order by the GST Appellate Tribunal
whether remand order : No
Order reference no. : ZA090371026000631H Date of order : 27/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09ACNPJ1608E1ZR
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 22/04/2026
APL/239/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - RAVISH KUMAR SINGH , [email protected] , 9415257486
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. M/S MANI PLY , [email protected] , 9415111663
5. Order appealed against - AD090923003220J
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
ZD090624222521L Date - 28/06/2024
(5.2) Ref Number -
Personal Hearing - 27/10/2026 28/09/2026 15/09/2026 11/09/2026 31/08/2026 14/08/2026 10/08/2026
6.
06/08/2026

7. Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
Order in brief - The Department filed a second appeal under Section 112(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act,
2017, challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 28.06.2024, passed in the case of M/s Mani Ply, whereby
the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) was reduced from Rs.57,870 to Rs.5,3754. The case arose
when a vehicle transporting shuttering plywood was intercepted on 18.07.2023. The tax invoice and e-
way bill covered 418 pieces, whereas physical verification revealed 450 pieces, resulting in an excess
quantity of 32 pieces. The Proper Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.57,870 on the entire consignment.
However, the First Appellate Authority restricted the penalty to the excess quantity alone. The
Department challenged the reduction, contending that transportation of goods in excess of the declared
quantity constituted a statutory violation warranting penalty on the entire consignment. The
respondent maintained that 418 pieces were duly covered by valid documents and that the penalty
should be confined to the excess goods. Upon examination, the Tribunal held that the contravention
was established only in respect of the additional 32 pieces and that there was no sufficient evidence to
treat the remaining 418 documented pieces as goods transported in violation of the Act.
8.
Summary of Order
9. If demand order then whether demand quantified: Yes
Section-I
Particulars Central tax State/UT tax Integrated tax Cess Total
Disputed

Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
Disputed
Amount
Determined
Amount
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(a) Tax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(b)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest
(c) Penalty 28935 0 28935 0 0 0 0 0 57870 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(d) Fees
0 0 0 0 0
(e) Others
(f) Refund 0 0 0 0 0
For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:
10.
Issues as raised by
proper officer
Issues as determined by
Order by GST Appellate Tribunal
Appellate/Revisional authority
The present departmental appeal is
Levy of Penalty AS PER ATTACHED APL 07
hereby dismissed

Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 29.10.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow