The GSTAT Lucknow Bench has allowed an appeal and set aside a Section 129(3) penalty imposed on a pan masala trader on the allegation that the same e-way bill was being reused for a second transportation of goods, holding that the Revenue failed to establish the charge by independent and cogent evidence and that strong suspicion, presumption and photographic similarity cannot substitute legal proof. The ruling by Member (Judicial) Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Member (Technical) Arvind Kumar in APL/82/LCK/2026 (M/s Jai Enterprises, decided 16.09.2026) follows the Supreme Court’s principles in Satyam Shivam Papers (SLP dismissed) and the Allahabad HC’s rulings in Shri Surya Traders, Anandeshwar Traders and B.L. Agro Oils.
The Revenue’s case rested on toll plaza records and photographs showing the vehicle crossing the toll at 12:22 PM towards Auraiya, returning empty at 2:56 PM, and again departing with goods at 7:19 PM. The appellant explained that the first trip was for cotton cut pieces to Kalpi (supported by invoices and GSTR-1), and contended that travelling to Auraiya (65-70 km from the toll), unloading and returning within 2.5 hours was physically improbable. The Tribunal found that the goods physically verified at detention were fully covered by valid invoices and e-way bills with no discrepancy in quantity, weight or value, and that the Revenue had not verified the appellant’s explanation regarding the cotton delivery.
- 2026-juristway.com-2566-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | GSTAT Lucknow Bench | APL/82/LCK/2026 | 16.09.2026