6. The validity of the fresh SCN will primarily depend upon the scope of the High Court's remand order.
Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that the tax, interest and penalty demanded in the adjudication order cannot exceed the amount specified in the SCN and cannot be based on grounds not contained in the SCN. Since the earlier order was quashed for violation of Section 75(7), the department cannot automatically assume that it has obtained a fresh opportunity to enlarge the case against the taxpayer.
If the High Court merely set aside the order and granted liberty to issue a fresh SCN in accordance with law, the department may argue that the earlier proceedings stood annulled and a fresh SCN can be issued based on material available on record. However, such liberty does not necessarily authorize the department to travel beyond the purpose of the remand or to fill up lacunae in the original proceedings.
Where the fresh SCN:
raises entirely new issues (e.g., Income-tax TDS mismatches not forming part of the original SCN),
proposes a substantially higher demand than the original SCN, or
seeks to improve upon defects in the department's earlier case,
a strong argument exists that the department has exceeded the scope of the remand and is deriving an undue advantage from the taxpayer's successful writ petition.
Further, any new demand must independently satisfy the applicable limitation provisions and statutory requirements. The department cannot rely upon the High Court's order to bypass limitation or introduce fresh causes of action that were not the subject matter of the original proceedings.
Accordingly, the fresh SCN may be challenged if it can be demonstrated that:
The High Court intended only a lawful re-initiation of proceedings concerning the original dispute;
The department has introduced new grounds and new sources of alleged liability not forming part of the original SCN;
The enhanced demand effectively enlarges the scope of the dispute beyond what was contemplated by the remand order; and
The fresh allegations are otherwise hit by limitation or lack statutory basis.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the department is entitled, as a matter of right, to demand a higher amount merely because the earlier order was quashed. A detailed comparison of the original SCN, the High Court's operative directions, and the fresh SCN would be necessary to determine whether the department has exceeded the liberty granted by the Court.
Thanks Shilpi.
Issue for FY 2021-22.
Original DRC-01 dt. 18.06.2025
Form DRC-07 dt. 26.12.2025
New SCN dt. 01.06.2026