M/S Shaumya Enterprise vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Original PDF →
WTAX/4088/2025HC AllahabadGSTCNR UPHC01433310202515 September 20252 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Shaumya Enterprise, is challenging an order dated 15.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 2, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Kaushambi Sector, Prayagraj, which raised a demand of Rs. 5,73,488/- for the period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner received a show-cause notice dated 08.11.2024 under Section 73 of the GST Act, proposing a demand of Rs. 3,19,080/- towards tax, penalty, and interest. The petitioner claims the show-cause notice was uploaded on the portal under 'Additional Notice and Order' and was not communicated through any other mode, leading to the petitioner's inability to respond. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without the petitioner's response.

Held

The Court held that the demand raised in the impugned order dated 15.02.2025, amounting to Rs. 5,73,488/-, is in excess of the amount specified in the show-cause notice dated 08.11.2024, which proposed a demand of Rs. 3,19,080/-. The Court found this to be a clear violation of Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which stipulates that the amount of tax, interest, and penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice, and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice. The Court reasoned that the statutory provision is explicit and binding. The revenue's argument that interest and penalty are statutory and can be demanded irrespective of their mention in the show-cause notice was rejected in light of Section 75(7). The ratio decidendi is that a demand raised in an order must be confined to the scope and quantum specified in the show-cause notice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner to provide the petitioner an opportunity to file a response to the show-cause notice and pass a fresh order after providing a hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand raised in the order dated 15.02.2025, amounting to Rs. 5,73,488/-, is in excess of the amount specified in the show-cause notice dated 08.11.2024, thereby violating Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the demand of Rs. 5,73,488/-, which includes penalty and interest, is contrary to the show-cause notice that specified a demand of Rs. 3,19,080/-. This action, according to the petitioner, violates Section 75(7) of the Act as the demand in the order exceeds the amount specified in the notice. Revenue's contention: The Standing Counsel for the revenue argued that charging interest and penalty is a statutory power. Therefore, even if these components were not explicitly detailed in the show-cause notice, the authority retains the power to demand them in accordance with the law. The revenue contended that the petition deserves dismissal on this ground.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 75(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4088 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1.

This petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.2025 passed by respondent no. 2 for the period April 2020 to March 2021 whereby a demand to the tune of Rs.5,73,488/- has been raised against the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 08.11.2024 under Section 73 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in GST DRC-01. The notice, inter alia, called upon the petitioner as to why tax, penalty and interest to the tune of Rs.3,19,080/- be not imposed. It is sated that as the said notice was uploaded on the portal under the tab 'Additional Notice and Order' and was never communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of such notice, did not/could not file any response to the said show cause notice, which led to passing of the order dated 15.02.2025 raising the demand as indicated herein above.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in raising demand to the tune of Rs.5,73,488/- which includes penalty to the tune of Rs.31,908/- and interest to the tune of Rs.2,22,500/- is contrary to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and in violation of Section 75(7) of the Act inasmuch the same is beyond the show-cause notice wherein a demand to the tune of Rs.3,19,080/- against tax, interest and penalty was sought to be recovered.

4.

Learned Standing Counsel opposed the submissions made. Submissions were made that charging interest and penalty is statutory and, therefore, irrespective of the fact that the same has not been indicated in the show- cause notice, would not take away the power of the authority in demanding the interest and penalty in accordance with law and on that count, the petition deserves dismissal.

5.

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gauransh Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shaumya Enterprise .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)

6.

Provisions of Section 75(7), inter alia, read as under: "(7) 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."

7.

A perusal of the above would reveal that Section 75 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.

8.

Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs.3,19,080/- as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs.5,73,488/-, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.

9.

In view of the above discussion, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

10.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 15.02.2025 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction Kaushambi Sector, Prayagraj (B) Prayagraj/respondent no. 2 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the show-cause notice and after providing opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. September 16, 2025 Kuldeep WTAX No. 4088 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.