Revenue can invoke Section 74 CGST/SGST Acts for extended limitation when show cause notice demonstrates suppression of facts requiring statutory remedy adjudication.

The Kerala HC dismissed a writ petition challenging invocation of Section 74 of CGST/SGST Acts for extended limitation period. The Court held that the show cause notice contained several instances of suppression justifying Section 74 application. Since disputed questions of fact required adjudication, the petitioner must pursue statutory remedies under CGST/SGST Acts rather than seeking relief through Article 226. The Court excluded the rectification application period from limitation for filing appeals against the original order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders under Section 74 of CGST/SGST Acts
2. Justification for invoking Section 74
3. Allegations of suppression and misstatement
4. Application for rectification under Section 161 of CGST Act
5. Adjudication of disputed questions of fact
6. Availability of alternate remedy
7. Invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 74

Analysis:

The petitioner, a registered person under the CGST/SGST Acts, challenged the orders issued under Section 74. The petitioner contended that there was no just cause to invoke Section 74 unless suppression or misstatement was willful and with the intention of evading tax. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice contained factually incorrect statements and that the orders were issued without verifying the stock or considering explanations. The petitioner's rectification application was rejected, leading to the challenge of the orders on various grounds.

The Government Pleader opposed relief to the petitioner, citing justifications for invoking Section 74, including discrepancies in stock and unaccounted sales. It was argued that the petitioner did not object to the invocation of Section 74 during the proceedings. The Officer requested details from the petitioner for rectification, which the petitioner failed to provide, resulting in the rejection of the rectification application.

The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish a case for relief in the writ petition. While the petitioner raised contentions against the allegations of suppression, adjudication of disputed facts was deemed necessary. The Court stated that Article 226 cannot be used to determine disputed questions of fact and that the statutory authorities under the CGST/SGST Acts should adjudicate such claims. The Court emphasized the effectiveness of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner for challenging the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74.

The Court dismissed the writ petition but excluded the period from the rectification application to the filing of the petition for determining any period of limitation for filing an appeal against the orders. The petitioner was allowed to raise contentions before the Appellate Authority regarding the invocation of Section 74.

---