Two GST Tribunal benches rejected transit penalties where documents matched the goods, and the Allahabad High Court remanded a penalty appeal that relied on a driver’s statement not recorded in MOV‑01.

The GST Appellate Tribunal benches at Lucknow and Varanasi and the Allahabad High Court have held that a penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act cannot rest on a driver’s uncorroborated statement or a technical mismatch in documents when the goods match the invoice and e-way bill. [Shyam Vir Singh v. Pitambara Enterprises, 2026-juristway.com-3149-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST; Ankit Traders v. Commissioner State Tax & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3158-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST; Vadilal Enterprises v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-1370-HC(Allahabad)-GST]

Pitambara Enterprises. Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial), and Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical), dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against deletion of a ₹2,12,400 penalty on iron scrap intercepted in Lucknow on 31 Oct 2023. The Department relied on the driver’s statement that the goods were loaded at an undeclared warehouse rather than the Talkatora Road address on the documents. The Bench found that Form GST MOV‑04 recorded no discrepancy in the goods, that the Talkatora premises had been approved as an additional place of business on 24 Sep 2023, and that the weighbridge held a valid calibration certificate. A statement recorded without an opportunity for cross-examination could not override registered records, it held, citing M/S Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, and intent to evade is necessary for a penalty under Section 129(3).

Ankit Traders. Narendra Bahadur Yadav, Member (Judicial), and Ananjai Kumar Rai, Member (Technical), quashed a ₹1,60,216 penalty on areca nuts sent from Assam to Kanpur, imposed because the transporter’s bilty and the driver named Kolkata as the dispatch point. The appellant explained that the goods moved by rail to Kolkata and then by road. As the e-invoices and e-way bills were valid and the transactions were in the returns, the Bench followed M/s Saumya vs. Union of India and M/s Sangeeta Jain vs. Union of India and others to treat the mismatch as a technical irregularity, and directed refund of any penalty paid.

Vadilal Enterprises. Justice Vikas Budhwar set aside an appellate order dated 11 Jul 2025 that upheld a ₹87,600 penalty for a mismatch in the place of delivery between invoice and e-way bill. The driver’s statement, filed with the State’s compliance affidavit, was on a plain sheet and not in Form GST MOV‑01. Following M/s K. Y. Tobacco Works Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others (2024 U.P.T.C. (Vol. 117) 926), the Court found it of little evidentiary value. It held that the appellate authority must deal with every ground raised through a reasoned order, and remitted the appeal for decision within three months of 23 Jul 2026.

2026-juristway.com-3149-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3158-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-1370-HC(Allahabad)-GST