Ajendra Kumar Tripathi vs M/S BAJAJ ENTERPRISES

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Court No. Court I
APL/118/LCK/2026
AJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI
.............Appellant
Versus
M/S BAJAJ ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETOR, D-9 117/K MOTI VIHAR SOCIETY
SARVODAY NAGAR NAVEEN NAGAR UPKNN 208025 .............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. SANGRAM SINGH, 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. : ZA090371026000578H Date of order : 27/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN -
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 27/04/2026
APL/118/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - Ajendra Kumar Tripathi , [email protected] , 9453949835
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. M/S BAJAJ ENTERPRISES , [email protected] , 9415044416
5. Order appealed against -
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
KNP2/GST/0056/2020 Year 2019-20 Date - 12/03/2020
(5.2) Ref Number -
6. Personal Hearing - 27/10/2026 28/09/2026 15/09/2026 08/09/2026 02/09/2026

7. Status of Order under Appeal - Reject - Order under Appeal is annulled
Order in brief - The Department filed an appeal challenging the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the
First Appellate Authority, which had set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the
UPGST Act, 2017, amounting to Rs.47,11,649/-. The case arose when vehicle No. UP78DT0497,
carrying lead ingots, was intercepted on 14.02.2020. Although the driver produced a tax invoice, e-
way bill and bilty, the department noticed discrepancies regarding the actual loading locations,
supplier details, cancellation and subsequent generation of e-way bills, and a shortage of 302.500 kg in
the declared weight. The proper officer treated the transaction as suspicious and imposed tax and
penalty under Section 129(3). However, the First Appellate Authority set aside the penalty, accepting
the respondent’s explanation that the goods were covered by valid documents and that the weight
difference was minor. The Tribunal observed that the First Appellate Authority had failed to properly
examine the cumulative effect of the discrepancies, including the supplier-wise weight variations,
unexplained loading locations and the sequence of e-way bill generation and cancellation. It held that
the mere availability of invoices and e-way bills did not conclusively establish the genuineness of the
transportation when material inconsistencies remained unexplained.
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
359363.07 359363.07 359363.07 359363.07 0 0 0 0 718726.14 718726.14
(a) Tax
(b)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest
1996461.5 1996461.5 1996461.5 1996461.5 0 0 0 0 3992923 3992923
(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 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 allowed
The Appellate Authority held that the minor weight variation could be due to
uncalibrated scales and that procuring goods from multiple vendors to fulfill an
order does not constitute a violation. The authority quashed the MOV-09 order
and directed the release of the goods and refund of any amounts deposited.
Levy of
Penalty

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