Orders that travel beyond the notice: Section 75(7) in practice
A statutory prohibition, expressly worded, and one of the few grounds that does not require you to win on the merits.
Section 75(7) provides 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 that no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice. An order that adds a ground, changes the basis, or increases the amount is to that extent without authority, and the excess must be set aside.
The three breaches
Quantum. The order confirms more than the notice proposed, often because interest has been recomputed or a period has been added. The excess is bad.
Ground. The notice alleges a mismatch and the order confirms on the basis of blocked credit, or the notice alleges classification and the order confirms on valuation. The change of basis is bad even if the amount is the same.
Provision. The notice is issued under Section 73 and the order imposes a Section 74 penalty, or vice versa. The provision cannot be substituted at the order stage.
How to preserve and use the point
Build a two column table — what the notice alleged, what the order confirmed — and put it at the front of the appeal memorandum. Appellate authorities respond to this format.
Take the point for each item separately, because relief is usually partial. A single global submission invites a single global rejection.
Remember that the point is available even where you lose on the merits of the remaining items, which makes it the safest ground in the appeal.
Where the breach is gross — an entirely new case made in the order — a writ is available, because the order is to that extent without jurisdiction.
The related provisions
Section 75(6) requires the order to set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision. An order that confirms a ground without reasons is separately vulnerable.
Section 75(3) deals with the period for passing an order where a direction is issued by an appellate authority or court, and it is frequently miscomputed by the department.
Section 75(11) provides for exclusion of periods in specified circumstances, and Section 75(13) bars a second penalty for the same act.
Read as a whole, Section 75 is the most useful procedural provision in the Act, and it is under used because it is not glamorous.
What to do on Monday
Prepare the notice versus order comparison table for every order before drafting the appeal.
Take the Section 75(7) point item by item, not globally.
Check the order against Section 75(6) for reasons on each confirmed ground.
Where a wholly new case appears in the order, evaluate a writ rather than an appeal.
This page states the general position. A reader with a specific question on their own facts may write to the GST practice at AMLEGALS.
Write to the GST practiceQuestions we are asked on this
Does the department get a second chance to issue a proper notice?
Only within limitation, and a fresh notice on a new ground for an old period is usually time barred. That is why the point is valuable.
Is an increase in interest a Section 75(7) breach?
Where the notice quantified interest and the order exceeds it, yes. Where the notice proposed interest as applicable, the argument is narrower and turns on the computation.
Can the appellate authority cure the breach?
It cannot enlarge the notice. It may remand, but a remand on a ground never alleged should also be resisted.
Should we still argue the merits?
Always. A reply or appeal that takes only the procedural point invites an order recording that the substance was unanswered.
Is a writ available?
Where an entirely new case is made in the order, yes, on want of jurisdiction. Otherwise the appeal is the route.
In this cluster
- GST show cause notice: how to read it, and how to answer it
- Section 73 versus Section 74: where the department overreaches, and how to prove it
- Section 74A: the unified limitation regime from FY 2024-25
- DRC-01A pre notice intimation: reply, pay, or wait?
- From DRC-01 to DRC-07: the adjudication chain in one page
- Vague and omnibus notices: how Amrit Foods, Brindavan Beverages and Oryx Fisheries decide GST demands
- Suppression of facts under Section 74: what the department must actually prove
- Personal hearing under Section 75(4): the right, and the consequence of denying it
- Limitation for GST demands: the year by year table you should keep in every file
- Section 168A extensions: the challenge to extended limitation, and where the litigation stands
GST Insights is published by AMLEGALS for general information. Law stated as on 3 September 2026. Not advice on any particular set of facts; not an advertisement or a solicitation under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Readers with a question on their own facts may write to the GST practice of their own accord.