Shaily Singh vs M/S PRABHU AASTHA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Division Bench Court No. Court I
APL/217/LCK/2026
SHAILY SINGH
.............Appellant
Versus
M/S PRABHU AASTHA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., DIRECTOR, 117/P1/376
SHIVPURI KAKADEO KANPUR UPKNN 208025 .............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. DINESH SHUKLA, 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. : ZA090371126000018H Date of order : 02/11/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09AAECP3166D1ZI
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 06/05/2026
APL/217/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - Shaily Singh , [email protected] , 9450666909
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. M/S PRABHU AASTHA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. , [email protected] , 9554432009
5. Order appealed against - AD090822012001Q
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
ZD0901231330611 Date - 31/01/2023
(5.2) Ref Number -
6. Personal Hearing - 02/11/2026 31/10/2026 01/10/2026 25/09/2026 21/09/2026

7. Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
Order in brief - The present appeal was filed by the Revenue under Section 112(3) of the
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.01.2023, whereby the penalty of
Rs.2,55,792/- imposed under Section 129(3) was quashed. The case arose when a vehicle carrying Pan
Masala and Zarda Tobacco from M/s Prabhu Aastha Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur, to M/s Mohit
Agency, Gorakhpur, was intercepted by the Mobile Squad on 07.05.2022. The department imposed a
penalty on the ground that Part-B of the E-Way Bills had not been updated with vehicle details. The
taxpayer contended that the goods were being transported only about 5 km from the consignor's
premises to the local transporter's depot within Uttar Pradesh for onward transportation to
Gorakhpur. Therefore, the movement was exempt under the Third Proviso to Rule 138(3), which
permits non-furnishing of Part-B details for transportation up to 50 km within the State. It was also
established that the goods matched the tax invoices and physical verification revealed no discrepancy.
The Revenue challenged the appellate order, alleging violation of Rule 138, route deviation and
possibility of tax evasion. However, the Tribunal observed that the short-distance movement was
covered by the statutory exemption, the goods were fully supported by valid documents, and no
tangible evidence of tax evasion was established.
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
33072 0 33072 0 189648 0 0 0 255792 0
(c) Penalty
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(d) Fees
(e) Others 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
(f) Refund
10. For Other orders and Demand orders which are not quantified:
Issues as
raised by
proper
officer
Order by
GST
Appellate
Tribunal
Issues as determined by Appellate/Revisional authority

The
appeal
filed by
the
Department
is
dismissed.
Appeal No. KNP/04/AD090822012001Q/2223AKNP000215/2022 for the year
2022-23 is hereby allowed; consequently, the Order dated 09-05-2022, issued under
Section 129(3), is set aside, and the imposed penalty is quashed. The amount paid
in cash by the trader against the relevant heads is eligible for refund/adjustment in
accordance with the applicable rules.
Levy of
Penalty
Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 02.11.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow