SHYAM VIR SINGH vs A.A Enterprises

GSTAT
State Bench Lucknow
Division Bench Court No. Court I
APL/188/LCK/2026
SHYAM VIR SINGH
.............Appellant
Versus
A.A ENTERPRISES, PROPRIETOR, 538KA/13 SITAPUR ROAD LUCKNOW
TRIVENI NAGAR 3 UPLUC 226020 BADA DURGA MANDIR .............Respondent
Quorum
Hon’ble Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant
MR. ASHUTOSH MISHRA, ASSISTATN
COMMISSIONER, SGST
Counsel for Respondent
MR. SADEEP GUPTA, 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. : ZA090371026000632H Date of order : 28/10/2026
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 09BTYPA1965J1Z2
Appeal Case Reference no. -
2. Date - 24/04/2026
APL/188/LCK/2026
3. Name of the appellant - SHYAM VIR SINGH , [email protected] , 8954293717
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. A.A Enterprises , [email protected] , 9838098278
5. Order appealed against - AD090524174761T
(5.1) Order Type - Enforcement Order
ZD090724033141O Date - 04/07/2024
(5.2) Ref Number -
6. Personal Hearing - 28/10/2026 30/09/2026 18/09/2026 10/09/2026 03/09/2026 01/09/2026

7. Status of Order under Appeal - Confirmed – Order under Appeal is confirmed
Order in brief - The present second appeal was filed by the State Tax Department under Section 112 of
the UPGST/CGST Act, challenging the First Appellate Order dated 04.07.2024, whereby the penalty
of Rs.2,27,160/- imposed under Section 129(3) was set aside. The case arose when a vehicle carrying
16,170 kg of iron scrap was intercepted on 17.05.2024. Although the driver produced a tax invoice, e-
way bill and bilty, he stated that the goods had been loaded from an alleged undeclared warehouse at
Chinhat, Lucknow, instead of the respondent's registered place of business. On this basis, the
department imposed a penalty of Rs.2,27,160/-. The First Appellate Authority set aside the penalty,
observing that the goods matched the accompanying documents in description, quantity and value, and
that the department had failed to corroborate the driver's statement through independent
investigation or evidence. The Department challenged this decision, contending that dispatch from an
undeclared place of business violated the statutory provisions. Upon examining the records and
submissions, the Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained solely on the basis of an
uncorroborated driver's statement, particularly when no discrepancy in the goods or supporting
documents was established. The alleged undeclared loading point was also not independently verified
by the department.
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
113580 0 113580 0 0 0 0 0 227160 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
Issues as determined by
Order by GST Appellate Tribunal
Appellate/Revisional authority
The present Appeal filed by the
Levy of Penalty AS PER ANNEXURE ATTACHED
Department is dismissed.

Place :LUCKNOW
Signature
Date : 29.10.2026
LUCKNOW ANAMIKA DEVI
Designation : Stenographer/Law researcher
Jurisdiction :Lucknow