GST Demand Quashed for Exceeding SCN Amount in Violation of Section 75(7).

Issue

Whether a final GST assessment order is legally valid if the total demand for tax, interest, and penalty determined in it is significantly higher than the amount proposed in the original Show Cause Notice (SCN).

Facts

The petitioner, a service provider, filed an annual return declaring its supplies as exempt.
The GST department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in FORM DRC-01 under Section 73, proposing a total demand of ₹1.33 crore (for tax and interest).
However, the final assessment order passed in FORM DRC-07 determined a total liability of ₹5.00 crore, which included tax, interest, and penalty.
Based on this final order, the department initiated recovery proceedings and attached the petitioner’s bank account and immovable property.
The petitioner filed a writ petition, challenging the assessment order and the attachments on the grounds that the final demand was illegal as it exceeded the amount specified in the SCN.

Decision

The High Court quashed the final assessment order and all consequential attachment proceedings.
It held that the order was in direct and clear violation of the statutory mandate under Section 75(7) of the CGST Act.
The court affirmed that this provision explicitly states that the final amount of tax, interest, and penalty demanded in an order cannot exceed the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice.
Since the final order (₹5.00 crore) was substantially higher than the SCN (₹1.33 crore), it breached this statutory bar and was legally unsustainable.
The department was given the liberty to proceed with a fresh assessment in accordance with the law, after providing a due opportunity to the assessee.

Key Takeaways

SCN Sets the Maximum Limit: The Show Cause Notice is the foundational document that defines the maximum potential liability. An adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction to confirm a demand for an amount higher than what was proposed in the SCN.
Section 75(7) is an Absolute Bar: This provision is a critical, non-negotiable safeguard for the taxpayer, ensuring there are no financial “surprises” in the final order.
Invalid Order = Invalid Recovery: Any recovery action, such as the attachment of bank accounts or property, that is based on an illegal and void assessment order is also illegal and will be set aside by the courts.
No New Grounds or Amounts: The final order cannot introduce new grounds for a demand or a higher amount of tax, interest, or penalty than what the taxpayer was put on notice for in the SCN.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Golden Cargo Movers

State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.

WPT No. 147 of 2025

OCTOBER 15, 2025

Vikram Sharma, Adv. for the Petitioner. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Adv., Aman Saxena, Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Ms. Shruti Jha, P. R. Patankar, and Anand Shukla,, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard.

2. This petition is directed against the order (Annexure P/11) dated 24.04.2024 passed by respondent No.2, for the period from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, whereby a demand to the tune of Rs.5,00,11,112/- has been raised against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice (Annexure P/10) dated 19.12.2023 under Section 73 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth, ‘the Act’) in GST DRC-01. The notice, inter alia, called upon the petitioner, as to why tax and interest to the tune of Rs.1,32,92,796/- be not imposed. It is stated that as the said notice was uploaded on the portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Order’ and it was also communicated to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not deposited the aforesaid amount, therefore, respondent No.2 has passed final order (Annexure P/11) dated 24.04.2024 under Section 73 of the Act in GST-DRC-07 against the petitioner imposing tax and penalty to the tune of Rs.5,00,11,112/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that final assessment order was passed for aforesaid amount which is higher than the amount mentioned in the DRC-01/demand notice (Annexure P/10), which is against the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act. He further submits that in pursuance of final order (Annexure P/11) dated 24.04.2024, respondent No.2 has issued attachment orders of Bank Account vide (Annexure P/12) dated 11.07.2025 as well as attachment order of Immovable property vide (Annexure P/16) dated 11.09.2025. Since, final assessment order (Annexure P/11) is against the aforesaid provision of the Act, hence, he prays that impugned assessment order may be set-aside/quashed along with other attachment orders.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 & 2, who is main contesting party would submits that the petitioner has filed Annual GST Return for the financial year 2018-19, under Heading 9965 (Goods transport services), claiming his services to be Goods Transport Service, but when Annual GST Return was scrutinized, then it was found that service provided by him falls under Heading 9967 (Supporting services in transport), which is supporting service in transport. He further submits that in the Annual GST Return filed by him, he had sought complete exemption for the payment of GST, but since services provided by the petitioner was found to be under Heading 9967 (Supporting services in transport), therefore, the GST was leviable @ 18% (9%CGST and 9% SGST). Therefore, in the final assessment order (Annexure P/11) GST payable by the petitioner was mentioned as Rs.5,00,11,112/-, as he failed to file any document to substantiate exemption claimed by him. He further submits that since final assessment order has not been complied with by the petitioner, therefore, attachment order of Bank Account vide (Annexure P/12) dated 11.07.2025 as well as attachment order of Immovable property vide (Annexure P/16) dated 11.09.2025 have been passed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, reads as under :

“(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.”

8. A perusal of the above provision shows 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 demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.

9. In the instant case, show-cause notice issued by the respondent No.2 was claiming tax amount coupled with interest to the tune of Rs.1,32,92,796/-, but final assessment order (Annexure P/11) dated 24.04.2024 was passed for total tax amount including interest and penalty to be paid by the petitioner is of Rs.5,00,11,112/-, thus, it is clear that final assessment order of tax amount payable by the petitioner was more than the amount as stated in the DRC-01/demand notice (Annexure P/10), which is contrary to the provisions under Section 75(7) of the Act.

10. In view of above discussion, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the orders impugned dated (Annexure P/11) dated 24.04.2024 as well as consequential orders of attachment of Bank Account vide (Annexure P/12) dated 11.07.2025 and Immovable property (Annexure P/16) dated 11.09.2025 are set-aside/quashed. Thus, this petition stands allowed. However, liberty is left with the respondents No.1 & 2 to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

11. Pending interim applications, as if any, shall also stands disposed of.