SANJEEV KUMAR NIRANJAN vs M/S TIME STEELS

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Court No. Court I
APL/103/LCK/2026
SANJEEV KUMAR NIRANJAN
.............Appellant
Versus
M/S TIME STEELS, PARTNER, 28 SECTOR M KANPUR ROAD ASHIAYANA
UPLUC 226012
.............Respondent
Quorum
Hon’ble Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant
MR. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH, ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, SGST
Counsel for Respondent
MR. RADHEY SHYAM SAINI,
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
No
whether remand order :
Order reference no. : ZA090371026000466H Date of order : 24/10/2026
GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09AAIFT2705K1ZY
1.
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 29/04/2026
APL/103/LCK/2026
Name of the appellant - SANJEEV KUMAR NIRANJAN , [email protected] ,
3.
7235002519
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. M/S TIME STEELS , [email protected] , 8318637969
Order appealed against - AD091119005807X
5.
(5.1) Order Type - Demand Order
(5.2) Ref Number - ZD090422027487A Date - 13/04/2022
Personal Hearing - 24/10/2026 25/09/2026 15/09/2026 10/09/2026
6.

Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
7.
Order in brief - The Revenue Department filed an appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated
13.04.2022, which set aside the confiscation, tax, penalty, and redemption fine totaling Rs.1,89,000
imposed on the taxpayer under Section 130 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. The case arose from an
SIB inspection conducted on 20.03.2018, during which an alleged discrepancy was found between
the physical stock and the books of accounts. The taxpayer explained that the discrepancy resulted
from a temporary delay in entering transactions due to the accountant’s absence. The taxpayer also
produced a valid invoice dated 19.03.2018 and relied on statutory returns to establish the genuineness
of the stock. Further, the survey team’s reliance on approximate measurements rather than proper
physical weighment was questioned. The Bench held that a temporary delay in recording genuine
transactions does not automatically establish deliberate non-accountal or justify confiscation under
Section 130. It also considered the findings of the separate proceedings under Section 74, in which
the taxpayer’s explanations were accepted on most issues, leaving only a minor stock discrepancy.
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
31500 0 31500 0 0 0 63000 0
(a) Tax
0 0 0 0 0 0
(b) Interest
31500 0 31500 0 0 0 63000 0
(c) Penalty
0 0 0 0 0 0
(d) Fees
0
(e) Others
0
(f) Refund
10. For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:
Issues as raised by Order by GST
Issues as determined by Appellate/Revisional authority
proper officer Appellate Tribunal
Held that stock discrepancy was explainable due to delayed
accounting, approximation and subsequent reconciliation;
reliance placed on Section 74 findings; confiscation
proceedings set aside and demand reduced to NIL.
Classification
dispute
The Department’s
appeal is dismissed

Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 26.10.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow