Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Show cause notice under Section 74 unsustainable in absence of any allegation of fraud, misstatement, or suppression

Bimal jain
Section 74 CGST notice quashed for Rs 260 crore demand lacking fraud allegations or willful misstatement The Allahabad High Court quashed a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act against a company for a demand of Rs. 260 crores. The court held that Section 74 notices are unsustainable without specific allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The notice merely referenced earlier Section 73 proceedings and stated that the company's explanation could not be verified, lacking the essential jurisdictional prerequisites for invoking Section 74. The court clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Vadilal Enterprises Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others - 2025 (6) TMI 1149 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“theCGST Act”) without alleging fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Facts:

Vadilal Enterprises Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) was issued a show cause notice dated February 25, 2025 under Section 74 of the CGST Act, proposing a demand of ₹260,15,37,910.

The State of Uttar Pradesh (“the Respondent”) had earlier issued a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act on the same issues. The Petitioner had responded to the same with the necessary documents. While disposing of the show cause notice issued under Section 73 on February 22, 2025, the authorities recorded a difference in documents submitted during audit and those submitted during proceedings under Section 73 and stated that a fresh notice would be issued.

The Petitioner contended that the subsequent notice under Section 74 does not contain any allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, which are the necessary ingredients to invoke Section 74. Therefore, the notice was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

The Respondent contended that the material on record indicated suppression on the part of the Petitioner and that the substance of the notice, rather than the precise language, must be considered.

The Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of writ petition challenging the said notice under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act is sustainable in law when it does not contain allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts as required under the said provision?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s Vadilal Enterprises Limited Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others - 2025 (6) TMI 1149 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTheld as under:

  • Observed that, the impugned notice makes reference to the earlier Section 73 proceedings and states that the explanation submitted by the Petitioner could not be verified, for which further explanation was sought.
  • Noted that, the notice does not contain any allegation that the Petitioner committed fraud, made a wilful misstatement, or suppressed material facts, which are essential jurisdictional prerequisites for invoking Section 74 of the CGST Act.
  • Held that, in the absence of such allegations, the invocation of Section 74 was without jurisdiction.
  • Further held that, since the necessary ingredients to invoke Section 74 were absent, the show cause notice could not be sustained in law.
  • Accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice issued under Section 74 dated February 25, 2025 and clarified that, the Respondent is free to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh in accordance with law.

 (Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles