因追缴金额超过原因说明通知（SCN）中指定的金额，追缴令及扣押令被撤销。

恰蒂斯加尔邦高等法院裁定

In the matter of 

Golden Cargo Movers 诉恰蒂斯加尔邦政府案 (2025:CGHC:51354)

申请人收到一份关于2018年4月至2019年3月期间的 GST DRC-01 表格预告通知书（依据该法第73条），要求其说明为何不应征收1320万卢比的税款及利息。随后，税务机关发布了 GST DRC-07 表格的最终评估令，征收税款、利息及5000万卢比的罚款。因此，为追缴 GST DRC-07 表格中确定的金额，被申请人发布了冻结银行账户和不动产的命令。申请人对该命令不服，遂提起上诉。

申请人主张，最终评估令中的要求金额高于 GST DRC-01 表格中提到的金额，这违反了该法第75(7)条的规定。由于最终评估令违反了法律规定，因此请求撤销/废除该评估令及其他相关冻结命令。

高等法院裁定，第75(7)条明确规定，命令中要求的税款、利息和罚款金额不得超过通知中指定的金额，且不得基于通知中未列明的理由确认任何要求。然而在本案中，预告通知书要求的金额为1320万卢比，但最终评估令要求的总金额却高达5000万卢比。因此，该命令违反了该法第75(7)条的规定。

据此，GST DRC-07 表格的评估令以及随后的银行账户和不动产冻结命令均被撤销/废除。

文章：

1. Brief facts of the case:

• M/s Golden Cargo Movers（“申请人”）收到了一份依据2017年《中央商品及服务税法》（CGST Act）第73条发出的 GST DRC-01 表格预告通知书，涉及2018年4月至2019年3月期间；

• 该通知要求申请人说明为何不应征收1320万卢比的税款及利息。

• 申请人提到，该通知已上传至门户网站的“额外通知与命令”（Additional Notice and Order）选项卡下，并已传达给申请人。

• 由于申请人未缴纳上述金额，因此依据该法第73条向其发布了 GST-DRC-07 表格的最终命令，征收5000万卢比的税款及罚款。

• 因此，申请人针对 GST DRC-07 表格发布的命令提起了上诉。

2. 相关法律摘录

Relevant provisions of the Act are reiterated below for ready reference:

• 该法第75(5)条重申如下：

“（7）命令中要求的税款、利息和罚款金额不得超过通知中指定的金额，且不得基于通知中未列明的理由确认任何要求。”

3. Contention of the Petitioner:

The petitioner contended that:

• 最终评估令要求的金额为5000万卢比，高于 DRC-01/要求通知中提到的金额，这违反了该法第75(7)条的规定。

• 此外，为执行上述命令，被申请人还发布了冻结申请人银行账户及不动产的命令。

• 由于最终评估令违反了法律规定，因此请求撤销/废除该评估令及其他相关冻结命令。

4. 被申请人的主张：

The Respondent contended that:

• 申请人提交了2018-19财年的年度 GST 申报表，在9965项下（货物运输服务）申报其服务为货物运输服务。但在审查年度 GST 申报表时发现，其提供的服务属于9967项下（运输辅助服务），即运输辅助服务。

• Further, in the Annual GST Return filed by the petitioner, he had sought complete exemption for the payment of GST, but since the services provided by the petitioner were found to be under Heading 9967 (Supporting services in transport), therefore, the GST was leviable @ 18% (9%CGST and 9% SGST). 

• Therefore, in the final assessment order, GST payable was determined of INR 5.00 crores as he failed to file any document to substantiate the exemption claimed by him. 

• Further, since the final assessment order in form GST DRC-07 was not complied with by the petitioner, therefore, attachment orders of Bank Account and attachment order of Immovable property have been passed.

5. Findings and Analysis by Hon’ble High Court:

Hon’ble High Court made the following findings and analysis:

• Section 75 of the Act deals with general provisions relating to the 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.

• However, in the given case, the show-cause notice claimed tax amount coupled with interest to the tune of Rs. 1.32 Crores, but the final assessment order was passed for total tax amount including interest and penalty of INR 5.00 crores.

• Therefore, it is clear that the final assessment order of tax amount payable by the petitioner was more than the amount as stated in the DRC-01, which is contrary to the provisions under Section 75(7) of the Act.

• Therefore, on account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the impugned order in form GST DRC-07, as well as consequential orders of attachment of Bank Account and Immovable property, are set aside/quashed.

6. 结语：

The Hon’ble High Court held that:

• As the Final Assessment Order in form GST DRC-07 was issued in violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, therefore, the Impugned Assessment order and consequential order of attachment of bank account and immovable property are liable to be set aside.