M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75; GST statutory provision - Section 75(7)

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2023 under Section 74 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in GST DRC-01. The notice, inter alia , called upon the petitioner as to why tax, penalty and interest to the tune of Rs. 66,13,874.78 be not imposed. It is stated that as the said notice was uploaded on the portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Order’ and was never communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of such notice, did not/could not file any response to the said show-cause notice, which led to passing of the order dated 30.12.2024 raising the demand as indicated herein-above. Operative disposition: Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79678-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2006 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Vrinda Automation Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla, Parth Goswami, Gauransh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.12.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 for the period April 2019 to March 2020, whereby a demand to the tune of Rs. 1,34,94,294/- has been raised against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2023 under Section 74 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in GST DRC-01.

The notice, inter alia , called upon the petitioner as to why tax, penalty and interest to the tune of Rs. 66,13,874.78 be not imposed. It is stated that as the said notice was uploaded on the portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Order’ and was never communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of such notice, did not/could not file any response to the said show-cause notice, which led to passing of the order dated 30.12.2024 raising the demand as indicated herein-above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in raising demand to the tune of Rs.

1,34,94,294/- which includes penalty to the tune of Rs. 45,79,228/- and interest to the tune of Rs. 43,35,838/- is contrary to the showcause notice issued to the petitioner and in violation of Section 75(7) of the Act inasmuch the same is beyond the show-cause notice wherein a demand to the tune of Rs. 66,13,874.78 against tax, interest and penalty was sought to be recovered. 4. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the submissions made. Submissions were made that due to mistake less penalty against the statute for IGST was indicated and rate of interest was clearly indicated as such the petition deserves dismissal. 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Provisions of Section 75(7), inter alia, read as under: "(7) 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." 7. A perusal of the above would reveal that Section 75 deals with general provisions relating to determination of tax and sub-section (7) specifically stipulates that 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.

8. Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 66,13,874.78 as representing the tax and penalty along with interest @ 18% p.a. and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 1,34,94,294/-, even if the notice qua interest amount is taken in compliance of the provisions, the amount of penalty and interest thereon is beyond the show cause notice, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act. 9. In view of the above discussion, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

be sustained. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2, Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Jurisdiction Ghaziabad Sector-4, Ghaziabad (A), Ghaziabad to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the show-cause notice and after providing opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another concerns issue and context: the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2023 under section 74 of goods and services tax act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') in gst drc-01. the notice, inter alia , called upon the petitioner as to why tax, penalty and interest to the tune of rs. 66,13,874.78 be not imposed. it is stated that as the said notice was uploaded on the portal under the tab ‘additional notice and order’ and was never communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of such notice, did not/could not file any response to the said show-cause notice, which led to passing of the order dated 30.12.2024 raising the demand as indicated herein-above. operative disposition: consequently, the writ petition is allowed. order dated 30.12.2024 (annexure-4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 2006 of 2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 25.11.2023 under Section 74 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in GST DRC-01. The notice, inter alia , called upon the petitioner as to why tax, penalty and interest to the tune of Rs. 66,13,874.78 be not imposed. It is stated that as the said notice was uploaded on the portal under the tab ‘Additional Notice and Order’ and was never communicated to the petitioner through any other mode, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of such notice, did not/could not file any response to the said show-cause notice, which led to passing of the order dated 30.12.2024 raising the demand as indicated herein-above. Operative disposition: Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75; GST statutory provision - Section 75(7)—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75; GST statutory provision - Section 75(7) and the decision date 2025-05-14; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/s Vrinda Automation v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 2006 of 2025, and the decision is dated 2025-05-14. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice; Kshitij Shailendra,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 75; GST statutory provision - Section 75(7). The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 75 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 75(7) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Betterbot Tech Services Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Sandeep Singhal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Demand & Adjudication

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY