TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Order set aside for violating Section 75(7) - final demand exceeded SCN quantum and grounds, petition allowed</h1> <h3>M/s R.T.S. Electricals And Civil India Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Mrs. Arti Singh And Another Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance) Lko. And Another</h3> HC held the impugned order unsustainable for breaching Section 75(7) of the GST Act: the SCN specified a demand of Rs. 2,10,04,200 as tax, interest and ... Levy of tax, interest and penalty - violation of Section 75(7) of GST Act inasmuch the demand is beyond the SCN - 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. 2,10,04,200/- as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 3,04,55,800/-, 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 - petition allowed. Petition challenges order dated 09.04.2024 raising a demand of Rs. 3,04,55,800 for April 2018-March 2019, following a show-cause notice dated 26.09.2023 (GST DRC-01) which sought recovery of Rs. 2,10,04,200. The notice was issued under Section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The authority's order increased the aggregate demand-including penalty of Rs. 1,05,02,000 and interest of Rs. 94,51,800-beyond the figure specified in the notice. Relying on Section 75(7), which provides that '(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,' the court held the final demand to be ex facie contrary to that provision. The statutory contention that interest and penalty could be charged notwithstanding omission from the notice was insufficient. Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded for providing the petitioner an opportunity to file a response and, after hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
