Vishal Singh vs POORVI ENTERPRISES

Dated: 02.11.2026
GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Court No. Court I
APL/178/LCK/2026
VISHAL SINGH
.............Appellant
Versus
POORVI ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETOR, A 27 GIRIRAJ COLONY NEAR
RAILWAY STATION BHARATPUR BHARATPUR RJBHA 321001 .............Respondent
Quorum
Hon’ble Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant
MR. VIRENDRA MISHRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
SGST
Counsel for Respondent
MR. MANISH TRIPATHI,
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. : ZA090371126000037H Date of order : 02/11/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09ESMPK8713C1ZI
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 13/05/2026
APL/178/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - Vishal Singh , [email protected] , 9839556691
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. POORVI ENTERPRISES , [email protected] , 7790913029
5. Order appealed against - AD090925031880T
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
ZD091025124609D Date - 04/10/2025
(5.2) Ref Number -

6. Personal Hearing - 02/11/2026 29/10/2026 06/10/2026 28/09/2026
Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
7.
Order in brief - The present departmental appeal was filed by Shri Vishal Singh, Assistant
Commissioner, State Tax Department, Lucknow, under Section 112 of the CGST/UPGST Acts, 2017,
against the Order-in-Appeal dated 04.10.2025 passed in the case of M/s Poorvi Enterprises. The
dispute arose from an inspection conducted on 16.05.2025, during which the Department alleged
excess stock of 30,352.69 kg of Stainless-Steel Bright Bars and 9,046 kg of Stainless-Steel Wires,
having an estimated value of Rs. 35,55,215/-. On this basis, confiscation proceedings under Section
130 were initiated, and a total demand of Rs.12,79,877.96 was confirmed by the adjudicating
authority. The First Appellate Authority set aside the confiscation order, observing that the alleged
stock discrepancy was determined through visual estimation and approximate calculations, without
reliable physical weighment or independent evidence establishing an intention to evade tax. Aggrieved
by this decision, the Revenue preferred the present appeal. The Tribunal, after examining the records,
statutory provisions and judicial precedents, particularly the judgments in M/s Vijay Trading
Company and M/s PP Polyplast Private Limited, held that mere detection of excess stock, without
establishing the requisite statutory ingredients and intention to evade tax, cannot justify confiscation
under Section 130 of the CGST/UPGST Acts, 2017. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the
departmental appeal on merits and upheld the Order-in-Appeal dated 04.10.2025.
8.
Summary of Order
If demand order then whether demand quantified: Yes
9.
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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(a) Tax
(b)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest
319969 0 319969 0 0 0 0 0 639938 0
(c) Penalty
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(d) Fees
0 0 0 0 0
(e) Others
0 0 0 0 0
(f) Refund
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 appeal filed by the Revenue is
Levy of Penalty AS PER ANNEXURE ATTACHED
hereby dismissed

Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 03.11.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow