The Madras High Court quashed a ₹2.33 crore GST demand on a transport operator because the detailed notice named a different company and proposed only ₹2,02,872.
A GST demand confirmed for an amount far beyond that proposed in the show cause notice (SCN), where the detailed notice was issued in the name of an entirely different entity, suffers from patent non-application of mind and is without jurisdiction, the Madras High Court has held [Sendur Andavar Transport v. State Tax Officer, Hosur, 2026-juristway.com-3477-HC(Madras)-GST].
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy allowed the writ petition of a proprietorship challenging an order of 27 Dec 2025, with the detailed order of 26 Dec 2025, for 2021-22.
The summary SCN in Form GST DRC‑01 was issued in the petitioner’s name, but the detailed notice attached to it was in the name of “M/s. Saagar Springs Private Limited” and proposed only ₹2,02,872. The final summary in Form GST DRC‑07 and the detailed order were then passed in the petitioner’s name, confirming ₹2,32,79,820.
The Government Advocate argued that the discrepancies were typographical errors.
The Court rejected this. A minor clerical mistake, such as an error in an address, might be condonable if corrected in the later summary, it said, but the discrepancies here were “profound”. The demand confirmed was many times the amount proposed, and the entity and the amounts in the notice did not match the final order.
The Court held that the order had been passed arbitrarily, far exceeding the jurisdiction vested in the authority. It quashed the DRC‑01 of 27 Sep 2025 and both orders, and directed the bank to de-freeze the petitioner’s account on production of a copy of the order.
The authority was left free to issue a fresh notice on the alleged discrepancies and proceed strictly in accordance with law.
2026-juristway.com-3477-HC(Madras)-GST
