Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, being gravely aggrieved by the issuance of the impugned notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has preferred the present Writ Petition. It is the Petitioner's categorical contention that a prior notice under Section 73 had already been served, to which a detailed reply was duly submitted. A substantial portion of the allegations therein stood accepted and consequendy dropped by the Department. Despite such closure, a subsequent notice was issued under Section 74, bereft of any allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts-all of which are statutorily mandated preconditions for the lawful invocation of Section 74. The absence of these essential elements renders the issuance of the notice under Section 74 as ultra vires and devoid of jurisdiction.
Order-The Court has ruled in favour of the Petitioner, thereby quashing the impugned notice and setting it aside in its entirety. The Court categorically held that the essential statutory preconditions for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act-namely, fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts-were conspicuously absent in the impugned notice, rendering the proceedings procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable. However, the Court has granted liberty to the Respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law,should the factual and legal circumstances so warrant.
GST Case law Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals Versus State of U.P.
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 1512 (ALLAHABAD)
Authors-Bhogavalli Mallikarjuna Gupta & Siddharth Surana
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
