https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784235 The dominant issue was whether the adjudication order suffered from jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice by travelling beyond the show cause notice and relying on adverse material without confrontation. The HC held that an adjudicating authority cannot confirm a demand in excess of what is proposed in the show cause notice, and that failure to supply adverse material and afford an effective opportunity of reply/hearing violates audi alteram partem, justifying interference under Article 226 despite availability of an appeal. Consequently, the impugned order, which enhanced the proposed demand substantially, was interfered with and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after supplying the material, granting one month for objections and fixing a personal hearing with 15 days' notice. Petition disposed of. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784235 The dominant issue was whether the adjudication order suffered from jurisdictional error and breach of natural justice by travelling beyond the show cause notice and relying on adverse material without confrontation. The HC held that an adjudicating authority cannot confirm a demand in excess of what is proposed in the show cause notice, and that failure to supply adverse material and afford an effective opportunity of reply/hearing violates audi alteram partem, justifying interference under Article 226 despite availability of an appeal. Consequently, the impugned order, which enhanced the proposed demand substantially, was interfered with and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after supplying the material, granting one month for objections and fixing a personal hearing with 15 days' notice. Petition disposed of. Case-Laws GST Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784235