TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG, Ms. Radhika Agarwal. For the Respondent nos. 2 and 3: Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Biswaraj Agarwal. JUDGMENT PER RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J (ORAL): 1. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the CGST authorities at the very outset raises objection as regards the petitioner arraying the State as the respondent no. 1, inasmuch as, the order impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act and the order passed under Section 73(9) thereof. By referring to the aforesaid order, he would submit that though the proper officer was obliged to confine the adjudication to the show cause notice, the determination made by the proper officer exceeds the amount indicated in the show cause which infringes Section 75(7) of the said Act. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appearing for the respective parties, I find in this matter, an order in original has already been passed. It is also not in dispute that in order to prefer an appeal, as is required for maintaining the appeal, the petitioner has pre-deposited 10 per cent of the amount of tax in dispute. The appellate authority, however, chose not to go into the merits of the appeal and rejected the appeal on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... though the show cause was confined to a demand-cum-show cause for sum of Rs. 9,38,898/- the determination in Form GST DRC-07 dated 24th February, 2025 has been computed to Rs. 10,27,788/-. 9. Since, there appears to be a glaring jurisdictional error committed by the proper officer in determining the demand beyond the demand-cum-show cause, in my view no fruitful purpose will be served to grant....