Tirumala Milk Products Private Limited v. State Tax Officer
Case Facts:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 26.12.2025 confirming tax liability for FY 2018–19.
The show cause notice proposed a demand of Rs.1.37 crore, whereas the final order confirmed Rs.2.41 crore.
The petitioner contended that the order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice.
The writ petition was filed seeking quashing of both the show cause notice and consequential order.
Court Decision:
The Court held that the impugned order was contrary to Section 75(7) as it confirmed demand beyond what was proposed in the show cause notice.
The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the authority for fresh consideration.
The petitioner was directed to file a reply within 30 days and the authority was directed to pass a fresh order after granting opportunity.
The authority was permitted to proceed in accordance with law in case of non-compliance by the petitioner.
Other Case Law
Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Odisha Commissionerate of CT & GST & Ors.
Demand due to mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B – Sections 73, 74, 75(2), 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Section 34(2) of the CGST Act.
Facts:The appellant was issued a demand under Section 74 of the CGST/OGST Act fo...
Read MoreRam Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
Validity of Arrest under Section 19 read with Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Whether non-supply of the ECIR vitiates the arrest and whether the mandatory requirements of Section 19 were duly complied with by the Enfor
Facts of the Case:-* ED registered an ECIR against Ram Kishor Arora in con...
Read MoreSPL Motors (P) Ltd. vs Union of India and Others
Whether Rule 86A CGST Rules permits blocking of ITC in Electronic Credit Ledger beyond available balance (negative blocking).
Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, challenged the action of the res...
Read More