GST Litigation
7 articles
Tax Paid on an Audit Finding, Then Sued for Under Section 74: Orissa High Court Stays Coercive Recovery in Global Coal and Mining
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court has issued notice and restrained coercive action on a Section 74 order for 2019-20, where the assessee had paid the tax on the audit finding and the Department had written that the audit proceedings stood closed. The Court's reasoning is prima facie and interim, but it states plainly that the conditions for Section 74 were not satisfied.
14 min readA Reply Handed Over at the Hearing Must Be Read: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Section 74 Order That Treated a Manually Filed Reply as No Reply
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court has quashed a Section 74 order for 2019-20 that proceeded as if no reply existed, although the Superintendent had signed an acknowledgment of the contractor's written reply. The Court held that Rule 142(4) of the CGST Rules does not make electronic filing a condition of being heard, remitted the matter, and left the limitation and jurisdiction questions open.
13 min readTwo and a Half Years Too Late: Telangana High Court Declines to Examine a Section 62 Best-Judgment Assessment on the Ground of Delay
A taxpayer challenged a best-judgment GST assessment order two and a half years after it was passed, arguing that filing his return afterwards meant the order stood automatically withdrawn. The Telangana High Court never reached that argument — it dismissed the petition for delay, exposing a gap between the taxpayer's account of why he could not act sooner and the actual timeline on record.
13 min read629 Noticees, One Order: Delhi High Court Declines a GST Writ Challenge, Distinguishing ASP Traders on Natural Justice
When a single Order-in-Original runs to 1,881 pages and names 629 firms and individuals in an alleged fake-invoicing racket, does an individual noticee's claim that its reply was never considered open the door to a writ petition? The Delhi High Court says no — and distinguishes the Supreme Court's ASP Traders on the ground that a mass adjudication order is not the same as an unreasoned order against a single assessee.
14 min readSection 61 Is Not the Only Gateway: Allahabad High Court Sustains a Section 74A GST Notice Issued Without Prior Return Scrutiny
Eighteen sub-contractors, a works-contract chain running into crores, and a jurisdictional argument that Section 61 scrutiny must precede every GST demand. The Allahabad High Court draws the line between a Section 61-triggered notice and one built on independent verification, and holds the two are not interchangeable gateways.
13 min readOne Tax Period, One Notice: Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench Reaffirms That a Section 74 GST Notice Cannot Club Multiple Financial Years, Pending a Larger Bench Reference
A show cause notice covering financial years 2019-20 to 2021-22, alleging suppression of taxable value, was quashed because the CGST Act ties assessment and its five-year limitation to each financial year separately. The Bombay High Court held itself bound by its own precedent over a contrary Delhi High Court view — even after the Supreme Court declined to interfere with that view — but preserved the Revenue's liberty to revive the case if a pending Larger Bench reference goes the other way.
13 min readBland Recitals Will Not Do: Supreme Court Quashes a Section 74 GST Notice for Want of Foundational Facts of Fraud or Suppression
An audit objection, a notice parked in the department's own 'call book', and a bare assertion of suppression were not enough to invoke GST's extended limitation period. The Supreme Court draws a sharp line between reciting the words of Section 74 and actually pleading the facts that justify it.
13 min read