2026 (5) TMI 1724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 73 (1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2021-22. B. The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 18.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 under Section 73 (1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2021-22." 3. The petitioner is a Limited Liability Partnership which is providing project management consultancy services to t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner to pay the total amount of Rs. 2,06,46,142/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice and the adjudication order. 5. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. He assailed the show cause notice and the impugned adjudication order stating that both are issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice and both are without jurisdiction. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the decisions of Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court and Single Bench decision of Madras and Karnataka High Court. 6. Learned AGP for the respondents has strenuously opposed the petition arguing that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and therefore, acc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hallenged." 10. In the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, it is held that, "Section 75 of the said Act 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." We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid proposition. 11. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, it is clear that in the impugned notice a demand of Rs. 57,55,627.44/- is made to the petitioner. In the impugned adjudication order, a liability of payment of Rs. 2,06,46,142/- whic....