GST – Allahabad High Court: Demand may exceed SCN summary if specific discrepancies are raised and the taxpayer fails to clarify or submit documents – Petition dismissed [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
24-Jun-2025 18:38:44
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.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation