M/S Printman vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Held
The Court held that the Adjudication Order dated 06.02.2025 was passed in gross violation of the mandatory statutory provisions of Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act, 2017 and the Central GST Act, 2017. The Court found that the confirmation of a demand in excess of that proposed in the show cause notice is a fundamental illegality and renders the adjudicating authority's action without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that once the legislature has forbidden such an action, it cannot be permissible for the adjudicating authority to exceed the proposed demand. Accordingly, the impugned Adjudication Order was set aside. The matter was remitted to Respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner with due opportunity of hearing, preferably within three months.
Facts
The petitioner, M/S Printman, filed a writ petition challenging an Adjudication Order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2. The order confirmed a tax demand of Rs. 3,69,737.74 and a penalty of Rs. 54,275.76 for the Financial Year 2020-21. This was in excess of the demand proposed in the show cause notice dated 14.11.2024, which had proposed a tax demand of Rs. 3,69,737.74 and a penalty of Rs. 39,671.76. The petitioner contended that the Adjudication Order was passed in gross violation of mandatory statutory provisions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Adjudication Order dated 06.02.2025, which confirmed a tax demand and penalty in excess of that proposed in the show cause notice dated 14.11.2024, is violative of Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act, 2017 and the Central GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Adjudication Order was passed in gross violation of the mandatory statutory provisions contained under Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act, 2017 and the Central GST Act, 2017. They contended that the legislature has forbidden the adjudicating authority from confirming any demand in excess of that proposed, rendering the order without jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the UPGST authorities (respondents).
Sections Cited
Section 75(7), Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4117 of 2026 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
Heard Sri Ayush Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the UPGST authorities.
Upon hearing and perusal of the record, it cannot be disputed that the impugned Adjudication Order dated 06.02.2025 has been passed in gross violation of the mandatory statutory provisions contained under Section 75(7) of the UPGST Act, 2017 and the Central GST Act, 2017. Thus, the show cause notice dated 14.11.2024 proposed to confirm tax demand of Rs.3,69,737.74/- and penalty Rs.39,671.76/-. Against that vide Adjudication Order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 73 of the Act for the Financial Year 2020-21, tax demand of Rs.3,69,737.74/- and penalty of Rs.54,275.76/- has been confirmed.
In view of the fact that the provision of Section 75(7) of the Act is mandatory, clearly the Adjudication Order passed confirming the demand far in excess of the demand proposed is without jurisdiction.
In view of the above fundamental illegality made out in face of the reco
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.