2025 (11) TMI 1529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Shri Puneet Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State - respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2/- (total Rs. 19,30,302/-) under CGST and equal amount of tax & penalty under the SGST (both totalling Rs. 38,60,604/-), against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 without considering the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents in raising the dem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand has been enhanced to Rs. 38,60,604/-, which is, prima facie, against the provisions of section 75(7) of the GST Act. 8. Identical issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Unique Computer & Communication Shop (supra); wherein, it has been held as under:- "7. Provisions of Section 75(7), inter alia, read as under: "(7) The amount of tax, interest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed at Rs. 68,07,953/-, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act. 10. So far as the plea pertaining to not providing any opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, once it is the case of the petitioner that it was unaware of the issuance of the show-cause notice, the fact that in the notice issued to the petitioner, the date of filing of reply was indica....