The GSTAT Ernakulam Bench has set aside a penalty order under Section 129(3) and the appellate order upholding it, holding that the order for payment of penalty was issued on 26.07.2019 — 28 days after the notice dated 28.06.2019 — in blatant violation of the mandatory seven-day timeline prescribed under Section 129(3), rendering the order void ab initio and a nullity. The ruling by Vice-President Subramanya Rayaprol and Member (Technical) Ramamoorthi Sriram in APL/34/ERN/2026 (M/s Tiger Steels, decided 16.09.2026) follows the Thiruvananthapuram Bench’s own recent ruling in Siddhivinayak Automobiles (14.08.2026) and a consistent line of High Court decisions from eight different High Courts spanning from December 2022 to September 2026, including the J&K HC (Danish Hassan, 07.09.2026), Gujarat HC (Allcargo Logistics, Khatu Enterprises), Patna HC (Pawan Carrying Corporation), Orissa HC (K.P. Sugandh), and Madras HC (Udhayan Steels, Deepam Roadways).
The Tribunal observed that the law on this point is well settled and the issue is no longer res integra. The Appellate Authority had failed to look into this basic fact which was apparent on the face of the record. The appeal was allowed with consequent relief.
- 2026-juristway.com-2546-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST | GSTAT Ernakulam Bench | APL/34/ERN/2026 | 16.09.2026