Ajendra Kumar Tripathi vs M/S SHIVAM COLOUR TRADERS

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Division Bench Court No. Court I
APL/83/LCK/2026
AJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI
.............Appellant
Versus
M/S SHIVAM COLOUR TRADERS, PROPRIETOR, 13/242 BLOCK NO. 13
GOVIND NAGAR KANPUR UPKNN 208006 .............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
MR. RAJ KISHORE TRIVEDI,
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. : ZA090371026000645H Date of order : 29/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09ABNPC2046G1ZU
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 21/04/2026
APL/83/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - Ajendra Kumar Tripathi , [email protected] , 9453949835
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. M/S SHIVAM COLOUR TRADERS , [email protected] , 9415127954
5. Order appealed against - AD091023009713F
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
ZD0904251625076 Date - 04/04/2025
(5.2) Ref Number -
Personal Hearing - 29/10/2026 01/10/2026 21/09/2026 10/09/2026 20/08/2026 12/08/2026 06/08/2026
6.
16/07/2026

7. Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
Order in brief - The present second appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 112 of the
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, against the Order-in-Appeal dated 04.04.2025 passed in the case of M/s
Shivam Colour Traders, whereby the First Appellate Authority had set aside the penalty imposed
under Section 129(3) of the Act. The dispute arose from the interception of vehicle No. UP78HN8510
on 19.07.2023, carrying consignments of paints from Kanpur to Raebareli. During verification, it was
found that E-Way Bills corresponding to Tax Invoice Nos. 1826 and 1827 had not been completed by
updating Part-B with vehicle details, while the E-Way Bill corresponding to Tax Invoice No. 1718 had
expired on 17.07.2023. Consequently, the goods were detained and a penalty of ?2,70,444/- was
imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act vide Order-in-Original dated 24.07.2023. The First Appellate
Authority set aside the penalty on the grounds that the goods physically matched the invoices, the
transactions were subsequently declared in GSTR-1 returns, and the documentation deficiencies were
merely technical errors attributable to the transporter without any intention to evade tax. Upon
examination of the facts, statutory provisions and submissions of both parties, the Tribunal held that
the movement of goods with an incomplete Part-B and an expired E-Way Bill constituted a violation
of the mandatory requirements of Section 68 read with Rule 138 of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017. It
further observed that the Respondent failed to establish any valid reason for the delay in
transportation, non-updating of Part-B or expiry of the E-Way Bill. The subsequent updating of
vehicle details and declaration of transactions in GSTR-1 returns could not cure the statutory
contravention existing at the time of interception. The Tribunal accordingly held that the First
Appellate Authority had erred in treating the statutory violations as mere technical or procedural
lapses and in waiving the penalty on the ground of absence of mens rea. The findings of the First
Appellate Authority were found to be legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal
was allowed, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 04.04.2025 was set aside, and the Order-in-
Original dated 24.07.2023 was restored, thereby upholding the penalty of ?2,70,444/- imposed under
Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017.
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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(a) Tax
(b)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest
13522 135222 13522 135222 0 0 0 0 27044 270444
(c) Penalty
(d) Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
(e) Others
0 0 0 0 0
(f) Refund
10. For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:

Issues
as
raised
by
proper
officer
Issues as determined by
Order by GST Appellate Tribunal
Appellate/Revisional authority
The First Appellate Authority allowed
the appeal and quashed the penalty of
�¢���¹2,70,444/-. The
Authority observed that the details of
goods, value, and quantity matched
the invoices, and the error of not
updating Part-B or extending the E-
way bill validity was a technical lapse
on the part of the transporter. Relying
on various High Court judgments, the
Authority concluded that in the
absence of mens rea or intent to evade
tax, the penalty under Section 129(3)
cannot be sustained
ORDER In view of the detailed findings and legal analysis
recorded above, the Appeal preferred by the Revenue is
hereby ALLOWED. • The impugned Order-in-Appeal No.
KNP2/GST/2324AKNP001922/
AD091023009713F/2024/2024-25 dated 04/04/2025 passed
by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) Second,
State Tax, Kanpur is hereby SET ASIDE. • The Original
Adjudication Order-in-Original No. ZD090723126440K
dated 24/07/2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Mobile Squad, Sector 1, Bhognipur is hereby RESTORED.
• The demand and recovery of the statutory penalty
amounting to ?2,70,444/- (comprising CGST ?1,35,222/-
and SGST ?1,35,222/-) levied under Section 129(3) against
the Respondent is hereby UPHELD.
Levy
of
Penalty
Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 30.10.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow