In two cases, the Lucknow Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal rejected taxpayers’ monetary-limit objections to Revenue appeals, then upheld orders cancelling a transit penalty and a confiscation order.

GSTAT Lucknow has held that departmental appeals involving less than the ₹20,00,000 monetary limit in Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST are maintainable where the issue is recurring in nature or involves interpretation of the Act, an exclusion in paragraph 4 of the Circular. Having admitted both appeals, it dismissed them on merits. [Shaily Singh v. Prabhu Aastha Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., 2026-juristway.com-3274-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST; Vishal Singh v. Poorvi Enterprises, 2026-juristway.com-3275-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST]

The Bench of Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Member (Judicial), and Arvind Kumar, Member (Technical), decided both appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 112. In each, the taxpayer objected that the disputed amount fell below the threshold, and the Department relied on the exclusion for any other issue that is recurring in nature or involves interpretation of the Act, Rules, notifications or circulars.

Prabhu Aastha Enterprise. A mobile squad intercepted a vehicle at Tatmill Crossing, Kanpur on 7 May 2022 carrying pan masala and tobacco with tax invoices and Part-A of two e-way bills, but with Part-B unfilled. Physical verification in Form GST MOV‑04 found no discrepancy, yet a penalty of ₹2,55,792 was imposed under Section 129(3) and deposited under protest. The first appellate authority quashed it. Treating the mobile squad’s enforcement jurisdiction as a recurring legal question in transportation checks, the Bench held the appeal maintainable.

On merits, it held that the third proviso to Rule 138(3) of the CGST Rules allows Part-B to be left blank where goods move up to 50 km within the State from the consignor to the transporter for onward transport. Here the goods moved about 5 km from Fazalganj to the transporter’s depot at Transport Nagar for carriage to Gorakhpur. Rejecting reliance on the portal legend that the e-way bill was not valid without Part-B, it held: “An automated system stamp on a portal cannot override explicit, codified rules enacted by the legislature.” The route-deviation allegation, first raised in Form GST MOV‑07, found no support in the driver’s statement or the MOV‑04 and MOV‑06 records. Relying on Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Odisha and Monotech Systems Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 1689 of 2024), the Bench upheld the appellate order.

Poorvi Enterprises. The Special Investigation Branch inspected the respondent’s premises at Sandila on 16 May 2025 and alleged excess stock of stainless-steel bright bars and wires valued at ₹35,55,215. Tax and a confiscation fine totalling ₹12,79,877.96 were confirmed under Section 130, and the first appellate authority set the order aside. The Bench held that the choice between Section 130 and Sections 73 or 74 for stock discrepancies involves interpretation of the Act and fell within the exclusion.

On merits, it found that the stock had been estimated visually instead of being weighed, that the verification sheets for different units were inconsistent, and that the respondent filed its returns regularly. It held: “The choice of taking a penal path under Section 130 cannot be dictated by the administrative desire to collect higher fines.” Following Vijay Trading Company v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-II & Another (Writ Tax No. 1278 of 2024) and PP Polyplast Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner, Grade-II & Another (Writ Tax No. 1183 of 2024), against which the Revenue’s special leave petitions were dismissed, the Bench held that the liability must be determined under Sections 73 or 74.

Both departmental appeals were dismissed and the orders-in-appeal upheld.

2026-juristway.com-3274-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3275-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST