The GSTAT Varanasi Bench has allowed an appeal and quashed a Section 129 penalty of Rs. 6,48,366 imposed on a vehicle transporting bituminous products that took a longer route through Uttar Pradesh instead of a shorter 70-km route through hilly terrain, holding that the GST Act does not prescribe any provision requiring declaration of a specific route for transportation of goods and that opting for a safer longer route due to difficult terrain does not attract the presumption of intent to evade tax. The ruling by Member (Judicial) Narendra Bahadur Yadav and Member (Technical) Ananjai Kumar Rai in APL/18/VRN/2026 (Bitchem Asphalt Technologies Ltd., decided 22.09.2026) follows the Allahabad HC’s ruling in Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar.
The vehicle was intercepted at Saiyyadraja, Chandauli, approximately 200 km from the destination by a longer route against a 70-km shorter route. The Revenue argued that entering Uttar Pradesh without necessity indicated intent to deliver goods elsewhere in the state. The Tribunal found that the goods were accompanied by valid documents, the shorter route passed through hilly terrain creating difficulty for heavy loaded vehicles, and the Revenue had not identified any alternative destination where the goods were allegedly being diverted.
- 2026-juristway.com-2609-GSTAT(Varanasi)-GST | GSTAT Varanasi Bench | APL/18/VRN/2026 | 22.09.2026