TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Extended limitation period for assessment and irregular input tax credit alleged from fraudulent invoices; recovery stayed pending adjudication</h1> Invocation of the extended five-year limitation period for assessment and recovery was challenged as confined to claims based on irregular input tax ... Invocation of extended period of assessment and recovery - extended five-year limitation period under Section 74 - irregular input tax credit by fraudulent invoices and willful misstatement - jurisdictional error in exercise of power - show cause notice - stay on recovery pending adjudication - writ jurisdiction of the High Court - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the prima facie view that the specific reference of invocation of extended period by the responder in the show cause notice to the contention that the petitioners have availed irregular ITC “on the basis of invoices purported to have been issued by non-existent entity against whom alert circular has been issued by Kolkata South and Kolkata North Commissionerate” excludes application of extended period to the other claims made by CGST authorities in the said notice to show cause. However, a final view on this can be taken only upon hearing the respondent authorities in full on this. Since, this Court is of the prima facie view that the proceeding in respect of the major part of the claim may not have been initiated by invoking the extended period, therefore, the respondent CGST authorities should not proceeded to recover any sum on the strength of the order in original dated January 31, 2025 till the next date of hearing. Issues: (i) Whether the extended five-year limitation period under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 invoked in the show cause notice applies to all claims made by the tax authority or is confined to the allegation of availment of irregular ITC on the basis of invoices issued by non-existent entities.Analysis: The Court examined the specific language of the show cause notice and the ground expressly invoked for application of the extended period, namely availment of irregular ITC on the basis of invoices purportedly issued by non-existent entities against whom alert circulars had been issued. The analysis focused on whether that specific invocation could be read as extending the five-year limitation to other distinct claims in the notice or whether the extension was limited to the fraud/irregular ITC allegation. Having considered the pleadings and the notice, the Court formed a prima facie view that the reference to the extended period was specifically tied to the allegation concerning non-existent entities and did not, on its face, apply to the other claims raised in the show cause notice.Conclusion: The Court concluded prima facie that the extended period under Section 74 was invoked only in relation to the allegation of irregular ITC based on invoices of non-existent entities and does not extend to the other claims in the show cause notice; accordingly, the tax authorities were restrained from recovering any sum pursuant to the original order dated January 31, 2025 until the next hearing.Ratio Decidendi: Invocation of the extended five-year limitation under Section 74 is confined to those claims in respect of which fraudulent availment of ITC on the basis of invoices from non-existent entities is specifically alleged and cannot be applied broadly to unrelated claims without specific invocation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
