The Allahabad High Court has set aside an adjudication order on the face of the record, without even calling for a counter affidavit from the Revenue, in a case where the demand confirmed in the OIO exceeded the demand proposed in the show cause notice — a gross violation of the mandatory prohibition in Section 75(7) of the CGST Act. The ruling, by a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi in Writ Tax No. 3478 of 2026 (M/s Svas Lifesciences Private Limited, decided 17.08.2026), reflects the court's view that where the illegality is apparent on the face of the record, there is no purpose in prolonging the proceedings.
The SCN dated 08.11.2024 had proposed a total tax demand of Rs. 39,557.159. The OIO dated 13.02.2025, however, confirmed a demand of Rs. 39,557.159 in tax plus an additional penalty of Rs. 40,000 — meaning the final order exceeded the total demand proposed in the SCN. Section 75(7) of the CGST Act is unequivocal: "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." The provision is mandatory and jurisdictional. An adjudicating authority that confirms a demand exceeding what was proposed acts without jurisdiction — the excess is void ab initio.
The court's observation captures the essential point: "Once the legislature has forbid the adjudicating authority from confirming any demand in excess of that proposed, it may never become open to the adjudicating authority to confirm the demand in excess of that proposed." There is no factual enquiry to be made, no reply needed from the Revenue, no further evidence to be considered. The illegality appears on a comparison of the two documents. The OIO was accordingly set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing, within three months. The petitioner undertook not to seek unnecessary adjournments.
This ruling is a useful reminder for practitioners handling assessment orders: Section 75(7) compliance is a bright-line requirement, not a matter of discretion. Any OIO that confirms a higher demand, a longer period, or additional heads not covered in the SCN is void to that extent, and a targeted writ challenge on the face of the record will succeed even without extensive litigation.
2026-juristway.com-2321-HC(Allahabad)-GST | High Court of Allahabad (Division Bench) | Writ Tax No. 3478 of 2026 | 17.08.2026