M/S G.S.Dixit, Unnao Thru. Proprietor Shri Gauri Shanker Dixit @ Goori Shanker Dexit And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner, State Tax, Lko. And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT TAX No. - 1184 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Sri R.C Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Sarin learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State revenue. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Under challenge is the order dated 25.09.2025 whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. As a consequence, the assessment and demand order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.3 has been affirmed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner precisely is that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-6 wherein for the financial year 2020-21, a tax liability of Rs.2,03,520/- was shown against the petitioner and he was required to show cause as to why the same may not be recovered. It is further urged that in the said show cause notice, there was no propose for imposition of any interest or penalty and the total outstanding was Rs.2,03,520/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 75(7) to indicate that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Chandra Mishra, Shashwat Anand Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S G.S.Dixit, Unnao Thru. Proprietor Shri Gauri Shanker Dixit @ Goori Shanker Dexit And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Commissioner, State Tax, Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

not be in excess of the tax determined by the proper officer and no demand shall be confirmed on the ground other than the grounds specified in the notice. Relying heavily on the aforesaid provisions, it is urged that that once there was no demand or even proposal to impose any penalty or interest then the order which has been placed along with supplementary affidavit dated 11.02.2025 is patently against the provisions as a sum of Rs.87,888/- towards interest under the CGST and SGST (each) and penalty of Rs.11,267/- CGST and SGST (each) totaling a sum of Rs.4,23,666/- is sought to be recovered and pressed against the petitioner. Sri Sareen learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the revenue could not dispute the fact that in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, there was no reference for any imposition of interest of penalty, however, the same has been imposed in the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 which apparently is against the provision of Section 75(7). This Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 cannot be sustained being arbitrary and against the specific provisions, accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. Since the impugned orders have been set aside, the attachment order dated 17.09.2025 also stands quashed. The matter shall stand remitted to the adjudicating authority who shall pass fresh orders. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. November 3, 2025 Harshita WTAX No. 1184 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench