GST section 74 demand sustained where suppression was alleged, liability was admitted, and the statutory appeal was not pursued.

A writ challenge to a GST demand under section 74 failed where the notice alleged wilful suppression, the taxpayer paid after audit objections without filing a reply, and the authorised representative admitted tax, interest and penalty liability before the adjudicating authority. The Court held that prior voluntary payment did not by itself negate invocation of section 74 on these facts, and upheld the demand. It also declined Article 226 interference because the statutory appeal under section 107 was not pursued within limitation and the petitioner had made binding admissions before the authority, making the writ petition unsuitable for maintainability-based relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice and consequential demand under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be questioned on the ground that the tax had been voluntarily paid before the notice and there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the adjudication order when the petitioner had not pursued the statutory appeal and had admitted liability before the authority.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice and consequential demand under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be questioned on the ground that the tax had been voluntarily paid before the notice and there was no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.

Analysis: The notice specifically alleged wilful suppression and invoked section 74. The petitioner did not file a reply to the notice and, instead, paid the tax after the audit pointed out short payment and excess input tax credit. The authority recorded that the petitioner's representative admitted tax liability as well as liability towards interest and penalty. On those facts, the plea that section 74 could not have been invoked merely because tax had been paid before the final order was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the invocation of section 74 failed and the demand based on that provision was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable against the adjudication order when the petitioner had not pursued the statutory appeal and had admitted liability before the authority.

Analysis: The petitioner did not avail the statutory appellate remedy under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within limitation and approached the Court after substantial delay. The Court also treated the admission made before the adjudicating authority as binding for purposes of the writ proceedings and declined to permit a contrary stand. In these circumstances, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was considered unwarranted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not fit for interference on maintainability and conduct.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the GST adjudication order failed on merits and on maintainability, and the petitioner obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere with a GST demand under section 74 where the notice alleges suppression, the taxpayer has made voluntary payments without protest and has admitted liability before the adjudicating authority, especially when the statutory appellate remedy was not pursued.

---