The GSTAT Lucknow Bench has allowed an appeal and set aside a Section 129 penalty of Rs. 1,07,730 imposed on a trader of areca nuts where the goods were accompanied by a valid tax invoice, e-way bill and transport documents, and the only discrepancy related to the address and particulars of the appellant differing from the registered principal place of business. The ruling by Members Santosh Kumar Srivastava (JM) and Arvind Kumar (TM) in APL/117/LCK/2026 (M/s A.H. Traders / Abdul Hai, decided 29.09.2026) holds that discrepancies relating to address and other particulars, in the absence of any independent evidence establishing a deliberate violation or intention to evade tax, cannot be treated as sufficient grounds for imposing penalty under Section 129.
The Tribunal relied on the Allahabad HC’s Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2024), which held that a mere technical error committed by the taxpayer cannot result in imposition of harsh penalty, quoting Chanakya’s Arthashastra that ‘Government should collect taxes like a honeybee collects honey from a flower without disturbing its petals.’ The Tribunal found no discrepancy in the quantity or quality of the goods, no evidence of diversion, suppression or fictitious transaction, and no material demonstrating deliberate contravention with intent to evade tax.
- 2026-juristway.com-2756-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | GSTAT Lucknow Bench | APL/117/LCK/2026 | 29.09.2026
