Prestige Nottinghill Investments Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 20 September 2024 and the Rectification Rejection Order dated 19 March 2025 issued by the third respondent under the CGST/KGST Act. The petitioner sought multiple reliefs, including quashing both orders, declaring the confirmed demand as being in excess of the amount proposed in the show-cause notice (SCN), and restraining the authorities from proceeding with the impugned orders. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the demand was without jurisdiction, violative of natural justice, and contrary to the statutory scheme of the CGST Act.
During the hearing, the petitioner pointed out that the SCN dated 28 May 2024 had proposed a demand of ₹2,49,63,816. The petitioner had submitted a reply to this notice. Despite this, the Order-in-Original dated 20 September 2024 confirmed a significantly higher demand of ₹6,93,77,821, which, according to the petitioner, was impermissible under Section 75(7) of the CGST/KGST Act. The petitioner contended that Section 75(7) expressly prohibits confirmation of a demand in excess of what is specified in the SCN and does not permit confirmation of demand based on grounds not included in the SCN. The petitioner further submitted that the rectification application filed on 30 September 2024 under Section 164 of the KGST Act was wrongly rejected, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court.
