Section 74 CGST Act
5 articles
Circular, 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