Petition challenging SCN under Section 74 CGST Act dismissed for meeting requirements despite vague language claims

AP HC dismissed petition challenging SCN issued under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner argued SCN was vague and lacked ingredients for Section 74 proceedings, particularly suppression element. Court held that since limitation period for Section 73 notice had not expired when impugned notice was issued, extended limitation under Section 74 was not relevant. Court emphasized that mere mention of Section 74 in notice is not determinative; actual contents matter. Following precedent, court ruled that if SCN contents establish willful evasion, it suffices for extended limitation regardless of specific terminology used. Petition dismissed as SCN met requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
2. Jurisdiction and limitation of the notice.
3. Grounds for issuance of the show-cause notice.
4. Applicability of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the Show-Cause Notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act:
The petitioner challenged the proceedings for the assessment of tax for the tax period 2017-18 initiated via a show-cause notice dated 21.09.2023 under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The primary contention was that the notice lacked the necessary ingredients for initiation, specifically the aspect of 'suppression'. The petitioner argued that the notice should have been issued under Section 73 instead of Section 74.

2. Jurisdiction and Limitation of the Notice:
The petitioner claimed the notice was barred by limitation and without jurisdiction. However, during arguments, it was conceded that the notice was within the period of limitation of three years under Section 73. The court noted that even if the notice was issued under Section 74, it would still be within the limitation period under Section 73, thus not barred by limitation.

3. Grounds for Issuance of the Show-Cause Notice:
The court examined the show-cause notice and found it contained sufficient grounds for its issuance, including the taxpayer's ineligibility to transition the credit of duty paid on inputs lying in stock as on 30.06.2017, contraventions of Section 59 of the CGST Act, and non-declaration of facts with an intention to avail transition credit fraudulently. The court held that the question of whether there was 'suppression' or not could be determined by the authority after considering the petitioner's reply.

4. Applicability of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court referenced precedents, emphasizing that writ petitions should not be entertained against mere issuance of show-cause notices unless the notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction. The court held that the petitioner should respond to the show-cause notice and raise all objections before the authority. The writ petition was dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to file a reply and raise objections as per law.

Conclusion:
The writ petition challenging the show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act was dismissed. The court held that the notice was not barred by limitation and contained sufficient grounds for its issuance. The petitioner was advised to respond to the notice and raise objections before the competent authority.

---