TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Authorities Validate Show Cause Notice for Input Tax Credit Irregularities Under Section 74 of CGST Act</h1> <h3>Group M Media India Private Limited Versus Union Of India And Others</h3> Group M Media India Private Limited Versus Union Of India And Others - 2024:PHHC:139492 - DB Issues:1. Validity of show cause notice issued under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.2. Allegations of tax evasion and concealment against the petitioner.3. Parallel proceedings by different tax authorities.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the show cause notice issued under section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that it did not specify the manner of concealment of tax. The petitioner contended that the notice should point out incriminating allegations of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. case and the Allahabad High Court decision in HCL Infotech Ltd. case. The High Court held that dropping proceedings under section 73 did not prevent initiating proceedings under section 74, as accepted in the HCL Infotech Ltd. case. The court dismissed the petitioner's contention as misconceived.Issue 2: The notice alleged that the petitioner had availed excess input tax credit (ITC) without the corresponding tax liability being deposited in the government treasury. The notice detailed the discrepancies in ITC availed under different heads of tax, which were not reflected in GSTR-2A. The notice invoked sections 16(2)(c), 50(3), and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, seeking recovery of tax, interest, and penalty. The court found the allegations sufficient to reflect tax evasion and fraud by the petitioner.Issue 3: The petitioner raised concerns about parallel proceedings by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and the Haryana State GST Intelligence Unit. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST issued a letter for tax liability deposit, while the DGGI sought queries without initiating section 74 proceedings. The court noted that only the Haryana State Tax (SGST) issued the notice under section 74, specifying the alleged tax evasion by the petitioner. The court clarified that the writ petition challenging the notice was premature and dismissed it as misconceived, emphasizing that the court would not interfere with the ongoing proceedings.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the validity of the show cause notice issued under section 74, finding the allegations of tax evasion and concealment against the petitioner sufficient. The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as premature and misconceived, allowing the tax authorities to proceed with the proceedings under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
TaxTMI 