TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Demand set aside for violating Section 75(7) GST: confirmed liabilities exceeded SCN amounts; matter remanded for fresh hearing</h1> HC held the demand unlawful for violating Section 75(7) of the GST Act because the order confirmed tax, interest and penalty far exceeding the amount ... Scope of SCN - demand with interest and penalty, contrary to SCN - violation of Section 75(7) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 75(7) would reveal that Section 75 deals with general provisions relating to determination of tax and sub-section (7) specifically stipulates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice. Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 20,916.90/- as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 155878.26/-, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act. Thus, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained - the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the show-cause notice and after providing opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand. Petition challenges order dated 28.08.2024 raising a demand of Rs. 155,878.26 for July 2017-March 2018. A show-cause notice dated 17.12.2024 in GST DRC-01 had specified a demand of Rs. 20,916.90; petitioner filed a response on 27.05.2024 and the impugned order followed nine days later. It was contended that the order exceeded the relief sought in the notice and thus violated Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Respondent contended that charging interest and penalty is statutory and may be demanded notwithstanding their omission from the notice. The court relied on Section 75(7): 'The amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.' Finding the impugned demand ex facie contrary to Section 75(7), the order was quashed and the matter remanded for opportunity to file response and for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
