Sanmati Kumar vs M/S SHANTI SUGARS

Dated: 03.11.2026
GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Court No. Court I
APL/196/LCK/2026
SANMATI KUMAR
.............Appellant
Versus
M/S SHANTI SUGARS, PARTNER, E 10/B2 RAMPUR BAGH NEAR AGRSEN
PARK BAREILLY UPBAR 243001 .............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. MOHIT VAISH , C.A.
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. : ZA090371126000101H Date of order : 03/11/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09AANFS1184Q1ZB
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 30/04/2026
APL/196/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - Sanmati Kumar , [email protected] , 9415731634
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. M/S SHANTI SUGARS , [email protected] , 9837005511
5. Order appealed against - AD090823064365S
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
ZD091024196887R Date - 16/10/2024
(5.2) Ref Number -

6. Personal Hearing - 03/11/2026 06/10/2026 22/09/2026 15/09/2026 09/09/2026
Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
7.
Order in brief - The present departmental appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated
15.10.2024, whereby the penalty of Rs.91,644 imposed under Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017,
upon M/s Shanti Sugars was set aside. The case relates to the interception of a vehicle carrying 250
quintals of sugar valued at Rs.9,16,429 on 21.07.2023. Although the original invoices and e-way bills
mentioned Bareilly as the destination, the driver stated that the goods were being transported towards
Etah. The Department treated this deviation as a violation of GST provisions and imposed a penalty.
The taxpayer explained that due to traffic restrictions during the Kanwar Yatra, the vehicle could not
enter Bareilly and the goods were subsequently sold to a registered purchaser at Etah. The taxpayer
supported its explanation with the subsequent e-invoice, e-way bill and bank statements. After
examining the facts, documentary evidence and relevant judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the
Department had failed to establish any intention to evade tax or any unaccounted supply. It observed
that a mere change in the declared destination, in the absence of evidence of tax evasion, was
insufficient to sustain penalty under Section 129 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
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(a) Tax
(b)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest
45822 0 45822 0 0 0 0 0 91644 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
10. For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:
Issues as
determined by
Appellate/Revisional
authority
Issues as
raised by
proper officer
Order by GST Appellate Tribunal
the departmental appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner, State
Tax, Mobile Squad, Budaun, against M/s Shanti Sugars, Bareilly, is
found to be devoid of merit and is hereby Dismissed.
Levy of
NA
Penalty

Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 05.11.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow