TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether proceedings under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be initiated solely on the basis of mismatch between E-way bill turnover and turnover disclosed in Form GSTR-09, in the absence of any allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between proceedings under section 73, which apply to tax not paid, short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, and section 74, which applies where such vitiating elements exist. The record disclosed that the impugned notice was founded only on turnover mismatch reflected from E-way bill data and Form GSTR-09, while no allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression was made in the proceedings. The Court held that the mere difference between E-way bill turnover and return turnover did not, by itself, authorise invocation of section 73 as a jurisdictional basis for the demand.
Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under section 73 on the stated facts was not sustainable, and the impugned notice and consequential orders were liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A turnover mismatch between E-way bill data and return disclosures, without a prima facie allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, does not justify invocation of section 73 of the GST Act for demand proceedings.
TaxTMI 
