GST notice under Section 74 requires fraud or suppression; disclosed transactions and short payment supported treatment under Section 73.

Where the taxpayer had disclosed the transaction and consideration received, the absence of material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts meant the ingredients for invoking Section 74 were not established. The dispute disclosed only short payment of GST, so the impugned order was to be treated as one under Section 73 rather than Section 74, favouring the taxpayer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned GST order, initially treated as one under Section 74, was liable to be treated as an order under Section 73 on the ground that there was no suppression of facts or fraudulent intent.

Analysis: The petitioner had disclosed the transaction with the Public Works Department and the consideration received, and the dispute arose from non-payment of the differential GST amount rather than from concealment. In the absence of material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, the ingredients necessary to invoke Section 74 were not made out. The facts disclosed at best established short payment of tax.

Conclusion: The impugned order was directed to be treated as an order under Section 73 and not under Section 74, in favour of the petitioner.

---