BAHADUR SINGH null null vs Himanshu, SHREE SHASHI BUSHAN SINGH

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Division Bench Court No. Court I
APL/294/LCK/2026
BAHADUR SINGH NULL NULL
.............Appellant
Versus
HIMANSHU, JOINT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, IT SECTION, STATE
TAX HEADQUARTERS, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW & ORS. .............Respondent
Quorum
Hon’ble Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant
MR. MANISH TRIPATHI ADVOCATE
Counsel for Respondent
MR. MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SGST
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. : ZA090371026000576H Date of order : 28/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 092600022205TMP
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 16/08/2026
APL/294/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - BAHADUR SINGH null null , [email protected] , 8802569211
Name of the respondant -
1. Himanshu , [email protected] , 7235001296
2. SHREE SHASHI BUSHAN SINGH
4.
5. Order appealed against - AD090526075451W
Enforcement Order
(5.1) Order Type -
(5.2) Ref Number - ZD090626075885M Date - 08/06/2026
6. Personal Hearing - 28/10/2026 22/10/2026 15/10/2026

7. Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
Order in brief - M/s Badri Vishal Goods Carriers filed an appeal under Section 112(1) of the
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, challenging the Order-in-Appeal confirming a penalty of Rs.39,74,712
under Section 129(3) of the Act. The case arose when a vehicle transporting goods was intercepted by
the Mobile Squad, Lucknow, on 30.04.2026. During physical verification, the authorities found that
the invoices and bilty documents carried by the driver related to different goods, whereas the vehicle
contained 23 categories of garments without matching invoices or e-way bills. The appellant
contended that the driver had mistakenly carried documents meant for another vehicle and
subsequently submitted 22–24 invoices issued by registered suppliers to establish the ownership and
genuineness of the goods. The department rejected this explanation, stating that the appellant failed to
provide corroborative evidence of the alleged document exchange and that the invoices submitted after
detention were unsupported by e-way bills. The First Appellate Authority consequently upheld the
penalty. Upon examining the facts, statutory provisions and judicial precedents cited by the appellant,
the Tribunal held that the movement of goods without valid accompanying documents violated
Section 68 read with Rule 138A. It further held that the subsequent submission of invoices did not
cure the original contravention and that the appellant had failed to establish genuine ownership of the
goods at the time of interception.
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
0 0 0 0 0 3974712 0 0 0 3974712
(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 raised by
proper officer
Issues as determined by
Order by GST Appellate Tribunal
Appellate/Revisional authority
The appeal filed by the Appellant, M/S Badri
Levy of Penalty ORDER ATTACHED
Vishal Goods Carriers, is hereby Dismissed

Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 28.10.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow