The Tribunal held that the factual foundation for invoking the Maruti Enterprises ratio was not established, as the documents produced were not satisfactorily linked to the intercepted goods.
The GSTAT Agra Bench has dismissed the appeal of Ghanshyam, upholding a penalty imposed under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act where goods were intercepted without the requisite accompanying documents and the subsequent explanation was not supported by reliable evidence. [Ghanshyam v. Himanshu Verma, JC (IT), State Tax Headquarters, UP & Ors.]
Members Ajeet Singh (Judicial) and Vivek Kumar (Technical) found that the claim regarding the destination of the consignment rested primarily upon documents whose genuineness and connection with the goods had not been satisfactorily demonstrated. The Tribunal distinguished Maruti Enterprises on facts, holding that where goods are found without the requisite accompanying documents and the subsequent explanation lacks reliable supporting evidence, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of an asserted out-of-state destination.
2026-juristway.com-3046-GSTAT(Agra)-GST
