GST Rulings

HC quashes GST notice & order for non-quantification of interest in notice

Issue

The show cause notice issued to the Petitioner did not quantify the proposed demand of interest. However, the interest demand was quantified in the order-in-original.

The Petitioner contended that, unless interest was demanded in the notice, it cannot form part of the order-in-original. Reliance was placed on Section 75(7) of the CGST Act, 2017, which inter alia states that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice.

Decision / Observations

[Order of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, dated 17.02.2025, in Writ Tax no. 161/2026]

Interest liability was well known to the authorities when they issued the notice. Non-quantification of such interest till the date of issue of the notice would contravene Section 75(7) ibid.

The GST authorities rely on Section 75(9) ibid, which states that interest on tax short paid or not paid shall be payable, whether or not specified in the order determining the tax liability. However, Section 75(9) ibid was held inapplicable to the instant case since it only covers non-quantification of interest in the order (not in the notice).

Therefore, the impugned notice and order were quashed and it was left open to the authorities to issue a notice de novo.

Comments

While the relief supra is temporary since the authorities would issue notice afresh with interest quantified, a hawk-eye while issuing the notice would have saved the round of litigation.

Further, a careful reading of Section 75(9) ibid covers only instances involving short payment or non-payment of tax. Rather, it does not cover instances of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or of erroneous refund of tax, which are the other triggers for demand under Sections 73 / 74 / 74A ibid. On the same (hyper!) technical note, that may mean non-quantification of interest in all such cases (even in the demand order) may pose an issue if the writ court is approached for relief, albeit it appears to be a draftsmen error of omission.

How many notices and orders do we witness with interest not quantified?!

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

Is limitation period of 2 years applicable to duplicate payments under GST law?

Issue The petitioner in the citation referred first infra, by mistake, made a duplicate payment…

1 day ago

Opportunity to prove bona fides must be given to recipient before ITC denial on account of supplier’s fault: Gauhati HC

Issue The Petitioner had questioned the validity of Section 16(2)(aa) of the CGST Act, 2017.…

4 months ago

Fee collected by universities not subject to GST: Karnataka HC

Decision / Observations [Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, dated 24.11.2025, in WP.…

4 months ago

60 days time limit to pass GST refund order is mandatory: Calcutta HC

Decision / Observations [Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, dated 30.07.2025, in M.A.T.…

9 months ago

CA certificate for receipt of net forex acceptable in lieu of FIRCs: Gujarat HC

Facts The Petitioner, engaged in export of services, had claimed refund of unutilized GST Input…

9 months ago

Why right to cross-examination is not unfettered: Delhi HC

[Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, dated 09.04.2025, in W.P. (C) No. 4576…

12 months ago