GST
TRT-2025-
Allahabad High Court
Date:-07-05-25
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 07 May 2025
Parties: M/s Mayank Mineral Vs State of U.P. and Another
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/s Mayank Mineral, was issued with a show cause notice citing discrepancies across 13 points. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand which exceeded the SCN’s summary figure.
- The petitioner submits that under Section 75(7) of the Act, the final demand cannot exceed the amount stated in the notice. Further demand raised on point nos. 4 & 10 was illegal due to lack of quantification in the SCN.
Issue –
- Whether the final demand is violated Section 75(7)?
Order –
- The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that as the show cause notice was specific pertaining to the discrepancies noticed and had provided opportunity to produce documents, non quantification of the demand in the show cause notice and ultimately raising the demand while passing the order, cannot be said to be in violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act inasmuch as once the discrepancy pertaining to the amount was pointed out, subject to production of documents, the determination made would always be treated as forming part of the notice.
- The plea sought to be raised that under Section 73 of the Act, no documents can be determined, is ex-facie baseless. If the plea as sought is accepted, the indication made in point no. 4 pertaining to sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 4,15,36,270/- without seeking further opportunities if the demand was raised, the same would have been in violation of principles of nature justice and the very fact that the petitioner choose not to supply the requisite material, essentially is an admission regarding the discrepancy as pointed out in the notice and, therefore, it cannot be said that either the documents cannot be demanded or on failure to produce documents, demand cannot be raised.
- In view of above, both the pleas sought to be raised based on scope of Section 73 of the Act and violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, cannot be countenanced. The Writ petition is dismissed.
Download Case Law
