GST section 74 requires only prima facie record-based jurisdictional facts, not a verbatim repetition of reasons in the notice

Section 74 of the GST regime is explained as a prima facie, record-based power that may be invoked when material from scrutiny, audit, inspection, search, or related statutory stages shows non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful input tax credit. The note states that jurisdictional facts need not appear only in the show cause notice; they may be drawn from prior documents such as ASMT-10, DRC-01A, ADT-02, ADT-04, or INS-02. It also distinguishes mechanically issued notices from proceedings supported by the statutory record, and indicates that older indirect tax tests do not control the GST scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under section 74 of the GST enactments could be initiated and sustained where the notice and related material disclosed the basis for invoking the extended period and the jurisdictional facts; (ii) whether the impugned show cause notices and assessment orders were liable to be quashed or interfered with on the ground of absence of foundational facts, pre-determination, or limitation.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under section 74 of the GST enactments could be initiated and sustained where the notice and related material disclosed the basis for invoking the extended period and the jurisdictional facts.

Analysis: The legal framework under sections 73 and 74 of the GST enactments was treated as a self-assessment regime in which the proper officer may proceed when it appears, on the available records or on material gathered in scrutiny, audit, special audit, inspection, or search, that tax has not been paid, short-paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised. The Court held that jurisdictional facts are required, but they may be reflected not only in the show cause notice itself but also in earlier statutory stages such as ASMT-10, DRC-01A, ADT-02, ADT-04, or INS-02. It further held that a bare reliance on older indirect tax jurisprudence cannot control the GST scheme, because the GST provisions and Rules form a distinct code and use the expression "where it appears" to denote a prima facie threshold rather than a higher "reason to believe" standard.

Conclusion: Proceedings under section 74 are sustainable where the material discloses the basis for invoking the provision, and the absence of a repeated recital of reasons in the notice does not by itself vitiate the proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned show cause notices and assessment orders were liable to be quashed or interfered with on the ground of absence of foundational facts, pre-determination, or limitation.

Analysis: The Court distinguished cases where notices were merely mechanical or unsupported from cases where the record already contained the relevant factual basis. It held that where the inspection, scrutiny, audit, or notice trail disclosed the alleged ineligible input tax credit or other defects, the proceedings could not be treated as premature or without jurisdiction merely because the taxpayer disputed the merits. On the petition-specific outcomes, the show cause notices in the Fastenex matters and the Turbo Energy matter were not quashed; the petitions were disposed of with directions to file replies and for the authorities to adjudicate in accordance with law. In the Ispahani Estates matters, the assessment orders were not wholly annulled on the jurisdictional objection; the matters were remitted for fresh consideration, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law and to invoke section 74 if warranted on the material. The Court also held that the petitions where the notices/orders were supported by the statutory record and the petitioners were only raising merits were liable to be rejected.

Conclusion: The writ challenges based on absence of foundational facts, predetermination, and limitation were rejected in substance, subject to petition-wise procedural directions, including disposal with liberty to reply and remand for fresh adjudication in appropriate matters.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the GST authorities' power to proceed under section 74 on the basis of prima facie material and statutory antecedents, while granting only limited procedural relief in some matters through directions to file replies or have the matters reconsidered on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the GST demand scheme, the expression "where it appears to the proper officer" requires only a prima facie, record-based basis supported by jurisdictional facts, and the presence of such material in the statutory proceedings is sufficient to sustain initiation under section 74 even if the show cause notice does not independently restate every reason verbatim.

---