Section 75(7): No Demand Beyond the Notice

Section 75 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.

One sentence containing two separate limits. Together they define what an adjudication order may lawfully do.

Section 75(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." The first limb is arithmetic; the second is about the case the taxpayer was asked to answer. Read with s.75(6) — the order shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision — and s.75(4) — a hearing shall be granted on a written request or where an adverse decision is contemplated — these are the provisions on which orders are most often set aside.

Limb one: the amount

The order may not demand more tax, more interest or more penalty than the notice specified.

Where a demand grows between notice and order, the usual causes are:

• the officer recomputing on a different basis and arriving at a higher figure;
• additional periods being brought in without a statement under s.73(3), s.74(3) or s.74A(3);
• interest recomputed to a later date on a larger base;
• penalty imposed at a higher rate than proposed — for example, a notice proposing the non-fraud penalty and an order imposing 100%.

Each is a straightforward breach of the first limb, and each is worth checking arithmetically the moment the DRC-07 arrives.

Limb two: the grounds

The more important limb, and the more frequently breached.

"No demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice."

The rationale is natural justice: a person answers the case put to them. A notice alleging one thing and an order confirming another means the reply addressed a case that was not the one decided.

The recurring shifts:

In each row, the taxpayer replied to the left-hand case and the order decided the right-hand one.

How to take the point: in an appeal, set the two texts side by side — the notice paragraph and the order paragraph — and show that the ground in the order does not appear in the notice. It is a documentary argument, not an argument of degree.

Section 75(6): the order must speak

"The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his decision."

An order that:

• reproduces the notice and the reply, then records a conclusion;
• says the reply was "considered but not found acceptable" without saying why;
• does not deal with a documented reconciliation filed with the reply;
• does not address the case law or circular relied on,

is not a speaking order. And a non-speaking order is difficult to defend in appeal, because the appellate authority cannot see the reasoning it is asked to review.

The practical step is to make the order's task hard to avoid: a reply organised paragraph by paragraph, with a schedule of documents and an alternative computation, produces specific points that an order must either accept or reject with reasons.

Section 75(4) and 75(5): the hearing

75(4): an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing, or where any adverse decision is contemplated.

Two independent triggers. The second means a hearing is required before any adverse order, whether or not one was asked for — though the safer course is always to ask in writing in the reply.

75(5): the proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown, grant time and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing, provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times during the proceedings.

So there are three adjournments available, on sufficient cause. Use them deliberately — a fourth request will be refused, and an order passed in the absence of the taxpayer after three adjournments is much harder to challenge.

The other sub-sections worth knowing

75(1) — where the service of notice or issuance of order is stayed by a court or the Appellate Tribunal, the period of stay is excluded in computing the periods in s.73(2) and (10), s.74(2) and (10), or s.74A(2) and (7).

75(2) — a failed s.74 fraud allegation results in re-determination as if the notice were under s.73.

75(2A), inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 — where the penalty under s.74A(5)(ii) is held unsustainable because fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression was not established, the penalty shall be payable under s.74A(5)(i) — the 10% / ₹10,000 penalty. The s.74A analogue of s.75(2).

75(3) — an order in pursuance of a direction of the Appellate Authority, Appellate Tribunal or a court shall be issued within two years from communication of the direction.

75(11) — where an issue decided against the revenue by an Appellate Authority, Tribunal or High Court is under further appeal, the intervening period is excluded from limitation.

75(13) — where a penalty is imposed under s.73, s.74 or s.74A, no penalty for the same act or omission shall be imposed under any other provision.

The checklist on receiving an order

1. Compare the amount — order against notice, head by head: tax, interest, penalty.
2. Compare the grounds — paragraph against paragraph.
3. Check the reasoning — does the order address each ground of the reply, with reasons?
4. Check the hearing — was one given, and were adjournments recorded with reasons?
5. Check limitation — was the order within the applicable period, allowing for any s.75(1) stay exclusion?
6. Check the penalty — is a separate penalty imposed under another provision for the same act, contrary to s.75(13)?
7. Check the arithmetic, including interest dates and any amounts already paid or reversed.
8. Diarise the appeal — three months from communication under s.107, extendable by one month.

Key takeaways

• Section 75(7) limits the order in amount and in grounds — two separate limits.
• A shift of ground between notice and order is a documentary argument, made by setting the texts side by side.
• Section 75(6) requires a speaking order setting out the relevant facts and the basis of the decision.
• Section 75(4) requires a hearing on a written request or where an adverse decision is contemplated.
• Section 75(5) allows three adjournments on sufficient cause, with reasons recorded.
• Section 75(2A) reduces a failed s.74A fraud penalty to the 10% / ₹10,000 penalty.

Read next

• Answering a DRC-01: Building the Reply
• The Suppression Allegation and How It Is Answered
• The GST Demand Limitation Map: Sections 73, 74 and 74A
• Section 75 of CGST Act 2017 — General Provisions

Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on the CGST Act as amended to 31 March 2026 (ICAI Bare Law, 12th edition).