The Allahabad High Court (‘High Court’), in the matter of Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. v. State of U.P[i] discussed the validity of imposition of a penalty on grounds other than those mentioned in the show cause notice (‘SCN’)
Brief Facts
The Petitioner in the case approached the High Court under a. 226 of the Constitution of India (Constitution) challenging the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal) order, Commercial/State Tax, and the consequent penalty order.
The crux of the issue before the High Court was whether the Additional Commissioner's imposition of a penalty on grounds other than those mentioned in the SCN was valid.
Held
The High Court, in the case, held that the imposition of a penalty on grounds other than those mentioned in the SCN violates the principle of natural justice, namely audi alteram partem. The High Court further held that adherence to SCN is not merely a procedural formality but a mandatory requirement beyond the scope of which no action can be taken.
The High Court observed that an examination of the appellate authority's order revealed that it had been alleged in the SCN that the vehicle was travelling to a destination not mentioned in the invoice at the time of detention.
However, the appellate authority imposed a penalty on a different ground: the e-way bill had expired, though the goods accompanied it.
The High Court, relying on various past decisions of the Supreme Court, concluded that the revenue cannot be allowed to build a new case against the assessee before an appellate authority unless the foundation of the allegation is laid in the SCN.
The High Court held that the SCN is the initial step in administrative or legal machinery, which apprises the individual of allegations levelled against them and gives the person an opportunity to present his defence or rectify any action before any punitive action is taken.
By issuing the SCN, the authority acknowledges the principle of audi alteram partem, ensuring fairness and due process in its proceedings.
The High Court further held that adherence to SCN upholds the rule of law and prevents the arbitrary exercise of power. Actions undertaken beyond the scope of SCN not only undermine the rights of individuals or entities involved but also undermine the legitimacy of the authorities, leading to the erosion of ‘public trust.’
The issuance of SCN demarcates the boundaries within which the authorities may exercise power by adhering to the confines of notice and upholding the principle of fairness, ensuring the legitimacy of the governance system.
Thus, adherence to SCN is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory requirement beyond which no action can be taken. Adherence to the confines of show cause is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power, ensuring that the authority remains tethered to the principles of justice and the rule of law.
Hence, the High Court held that evidently, the authorities have travelled beyond the scope of show cause and imposed penalty on grounds not enumerated in the show cause. Consequently, the petitioner did not have the opportunity to defend himself, which was directly in the teeth of the principles of natural justice, namely, the principle of audi alteram partem.
Our Analysis
The High Court, in the case, has reiterated the principle that the authorities cannot adjudicate or impose penalties on any ground other than those mentioned in the SCN. This emanates from the principle of natural justice, i.e. audi alteram partem, the absence of which would amount to the conferment of unbridled powers upon the authorities. Hence, the opportunity to defend ensures that the principles of natural justice are adhered to and the authorities do not act arbitrarily. Further, the High Court also reiterated that the limitation imposed upon the authorities to act within the confines of the SCN is not a mere empty formality but a rule of law that must be adhered to.
End Note
[i] (2024) 20 Centax 596 (All.)
Authored by Huzaifa Salim, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.