Allowed

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025WTAX/1492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged a GST demand order. The Court held the order violated Section 75(7) as the demand exceeded the show-cause notice amount. It quashed the orders and remanded the matter for a fresh opportunity to file a response.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Orders dated 11.02.2025 and 13.10.2025 are quashed. Matter remanded to respondent no.4 to provide opportunity to file response and pass fresh order.

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 1492 of 2025

¶3

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal Kumar Shukla

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration U.P. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

Registration U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Durga Prasad Dubey, Aayush Pankaj Tiwari, Hritik Dwivedi, Peeyush Pankaj, Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 6

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, is taken on record.

¶11

This petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by respondent no.4, whereby a demand has been raised against the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay.

¶12

The petitioner was issued an online GST ASMT-10, whereby the GST ASMT-10 had alleged certain discrepancies. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 22.11.2024 under Section 74 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in GST DRC-01 was issued. The notice, inter alia, called upon the petitioner as to why tax, penalty and interest be not imposed. As the said notice was uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, the petitioner, being unaware of the same, could not file any response to the said show-cause notice. However, as no appearance was made, the same led to passing of the order dated 11.02.2025 raising the demand as indicated herein above.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in raising demand, which includes penalty and interest is contrary to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner and in violation

¶14

WTAX No. 1492 of 2025

¶15

¶16

of Section 75(7) of the Act inasmuch the same is beyond the show-cause notice wherein a demand to the tune of Rs.32,11,470/- against tax, interest and penalty was sought to be recovered.

¶17

Further submissions have been made that while issuing the show-cause notice and the reminder, dates of filing reply were fixed, however, in column pertaining to the date of personal hearing, 'NA' was indicated which is also in violation of principles of natural justice. It is prayed that the order impugned, being in violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice, be set aside and matter be remanded back to the authority to provide opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶18

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Shri Sanjay Sarin opposed the submissions made. Submissions have been made that the petitioner, despite issuance of notice and reminder, has chosen not to file response and, therefore, passing of the order cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 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 also, the petition deserves dismissal.

¶19

The Court has considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶20

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

¶21

"(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."

¶22

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

¶23

WTAX No. 1492 of 2025

¶24

¶25

demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.

¶26

Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs.32,11,470/- as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs.60,54,984/-, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.

¶27

So far as the plea pertaining to not providing any opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, once it is the case of the petitioner that it was unaware of the issuance of the show-cause notice, the fact that in the notice issued to the petitioner, the date of filing of reply was indicated, looses its significance and it cannot be said that on account of such indication, the notice, on its own, would stand vitiated.

¶28

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. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 13.10.2025 and 11.02.2025 (Annexure-1 and 2) are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no.4 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.

¶29

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶30

December 9, 2025

¶31

Rakesh/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S New Akhilesh Traders Thru.Proprietor Suresh Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Institutional Finance ) Govt. of U.P. and 2 Others

Shri Bhushan Lal Midha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Ram Kishore Manish Kumar Thru.Proprietor Sunil Kumar Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax Registration Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Iftikhar Fatima Vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow, through its Registrar and 3 Others

Smt. Rajlakshmi Singh Vs Sushila Singh and Anr.

M/S S.S. Enterprises Lko. Thru. Its Partner Vimal Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration U.P. Lko. and 3 Others