Section 74 CGST Act
11 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 readNo Visible Signature, No Nullity: Telangana High Court Full Bench Holds Portal-Authenticated GST Show Cause Notices and Orders Valid
Ruling on a reference that resolved conflicting Division Bench decisions, the Full Bench holds that DRC-01 and DRC-07 notices and orders authenticated through the officer's digital signature certificate and uploaded on the GST portal are valid, are served on upload, and set limitation running from that date.
14 min readDifferent Statute, Different Subject Matter: Delhi High Court Refuses to Let a Concluded DGGI Fraud Probe Shield a Separate Section 73 Demand
A script-services company facing a ₹10.57 crore input tax credit demand argued that a state GST officer's proceedings were barred because the Directorate General of GST Intelligence had already investigated it — and that investigation had since concluded. The Delhi High Court disagreed on every ground: the statutory appeal was never filed, the writ came two years late, and the two notices, issued under different sections for different reasons, were never the same subject matter to begin with.
13 min readSame Assessee, Same Period, Different Subject Matter: Delhi High Court Applies Armour Security's Two-Fold Test to Uphold Parallel DGGI Proceedings Over State ITC Action
An exporter facing a combined demand of over seven crore rupees from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence argued that the State GST department's earlier, separate proceedings on the same input tax credit and period barred the DGGI's case under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The Delhi High Court disagreed, applying the Supreme Court's Armour Security two-fold test to hold that a general ineligible-ITC assessment and a fraud investigation into fictitious suppliers are not the 'same subject matter' merely because both concern ITC claimed in overlapping years, and relegated the challenge, along with an objection to a multi-year consolidated notice, to the statutory appeal.
13 min readState Registration Is No Shield: Delhi High Court Applies Armour Security to Uphold DGGI's Cross-Empowerment in a Multi-State Works-Contract ITC Chain
A works-contract subcontractor holding three separate GST registrations faced a combined demand of over five and a half crore rupees across three states, arising from an alleged fake-invoicing chain traced through its sub-subcontractor. The Delhi High Court rejected its challenge to DGGI's jurisdiction over State-registered taxpayers and to the Delhi North Commissionerate's authority to adjudicate, relegating the reasons-adequacy and Circular 171 defences to the Section 107 appeal, while extending interim protection to file it.
13 min readCircular, Not Notification: Delhi High Court Upholds the 'Highest Demand' Rule for Choosing a Common Adjudicating Authority in Multi-State DGGI Notices
Eight petitioners caught up in an alleged three-layer fake-invoicing chain challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi-based officer who adjudicated a composite show cause notice naming 146 noticees, arguing that only a notification, not a circular, could assign an adjudicating authority. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the 'highest demand' circular does no more than allocate business among officers already vested with pan-India jurisdiction by notification, and relegated the petitioners to their statutory appeal.
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 readDepartmental Knowledge Defeats the Extended Period: Calcutta High Court Quashes a Central Excise Demand Founded on the Assessee's Own Cost Audit Report
Hindalco Industries faced a Central Excise demand of Rs. 6,29,920 built entirely on its own Cost Audit Report, three years after departmental officers had personally witnessed the very stock shortages now called suppression. The Calcutta High Court held the extended period of limitation unavailable: what the proviso to Section 11A requires is a deliberate act of concealment by the assessee, not the mere absence of departmental knowledge, and a demand cannot simultaneously rest on a statutory record and be founded on its suppression.
13 min readBona Fide Buyer, Defaulting Seller: Calcutta High Court Curbs the Mechanical Use of Section 74 to Deny GST Input Tax Credit
A logistics company claimed input tax credit on invoices from a supplier who later stopped filing returns. The department invoked Section 74's fraud-based extended period to raise a Rs. 6.3 crore demand two years after ordinary limitation had run out. The Calcutta High Court quashed the order, applying binding precedent that a buyer's credit cannot be held hostage to a seller's default, and that dressing up an ordinary demand as fraud does not extend the clock.
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