Solvi Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner State Tax (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court Remits GST Case After Demand Exceeds Notice Amount
Summary: M/S Solvi Enterprises challenged an adjudication order dated 16.12.2025 that confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,63,35,254.80/-, although the show-cause notice had proposed a demand of Rs. 8,50,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the confirmed demand far exceeded the amount stated in the notice. The Allahabad High Court observed that the matter required consideration because the order appeared to violate Section 75(7) and the petitioner had never been put on notice regarding the demand confirmed in the order. Standing Counsel for the revenue fairly acknowledged that a clear error had entered the adjudication order. Without prejudice to the revenue’s right to proceed strictly in accordance with law, he stated that the order could be set aside and the matter remitted to respondent no. 1. In view of that statement, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit. It allowed the writ petition, set aside the adjudication order and remitted the matter to respondent no. 1. On remand, the officer may proceed on the show-cause notice dated 30.09.2025 or issue a fresh notice if limitation survives. The Court did not determine the underlying demand.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue.
2. Submission is, demand confirmed by the impugned adjudication order dated 16.12.2025 at Rs. 2,63,35,254.80/- far exceeds the demand raised in the show-cause notice giving rise to the adjudication proceedings, there the demand proposed was Rs. 8,50,000/-.
3. Matter requires consideration as the impugned order appears to have been passed in violation of Section 75(7) of the Act. The petitioner was never put to notice with respect to the impugned demand.
4. At this stage, Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel fairly states that a clear error has crept in the impugned adjudication order. Without prejudice to the rights of the revenue to proceed strictly in accordance with law, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent no.1
5. In view of such fair statement, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned adjudication order dated 16.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no.1 to proceed strictly in accordance with law. In that he may either proceed on the strength of the show cause notice dated 30.09.2025 or may issue fresh notice, if limitation survives.
