2026 (4) TMI 142 - HC - GST

GST adjudication cannot exceed the show cause notice; demand order quashed and remanded for fresh consideration.

A GST adjudication order is vulnerable where the confirmed demand does not tally with the show cause notice and appears to travel beyond its scope, ... Jurisdictional defect - Challenged the show cause notice and the impugned order - contrary to Section 75(7) of the respective GST enactment. Demand beyond show cause notice - Compliance with Section 75(7) - HELD THAT: - On comparison of the show cause notice and the impugned order, the Court found that both covered the same period and the same GST registration, and that except for the difference in the reference mentioned, the order prima facie indicated confirmation of a demand inconsistent with what had been proposed in the notice. The Court therefore held that the order appeared to have been passed contrary to Section 75(7) and could not be allowed to stand. [Paras 6, 7] The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, with liberty to the authority to issue a corrigendum and proceed after receiving the petitioner's response. Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order on the ground that the confirmed demand did not align with the show cause notice for the same tax period and registration, attracting Section 75(7). The matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Issues: Whether the impugned GST order was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted on the ground that the demand confirmed in the order did not tally with the show cause notice and was contrary to Section 75(7) of the GST enactment.Analysis: The notice and the impugned order were found to relate to the same tax period and the same registration, but the figures and reference particulars did not align. On a prima facie comparison, the order appeared to have gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Such a departure was treated as contrary to Section 75(7), which requires that the adjudication remain confined to the matters proposed in the notice and that the assessee be put to notice of the case to be answered.Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits after further corrigendum and response.Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in obtaining quashing of the demand order, but the adjudication was left open for fresh decision by the authority.Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication order under GST cannot confirm a demand beyond the scope of the show cause notice, and a breach of that limitation warrants quashing of the order and remand for fresh adjudication.