Section 74 suppression of facts upheld, but ex parte GST demand orders remitted for fresh adjudication on conditions.

Section 74 of the GST enactments was treated as validly invoked where the taxpayer did not fully respond to the scrutiny intimation and statutory notices, and the non-furnishing of information was applied as suppression of facts under Explanation 2. On that basis, the challenge to the demand orders failed on merits. However, because the orders had been passed ex parte, the writ petitions were remitted for fresh adjudication de novo, subject to filing a reply and depositing 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the invocation of Section 74 of the GST enactments was justified on the ground of suppression of facts and non-response to statutory notices, and whether the ex parte orders confirming demand should be interfered with or the matters remitted for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The petitioner had failed to respond fully to the scrutiny intimation, the DRC-01A notice and the DRC-01 notice. On those facts, the Court applied Explanation 2 to Section 74 and treated the non-furnishing of information as suppression of facts for the purpose of invoking the extended period. The Court also noted that the department relied on the petitioner's own records and that, in similar cases, the proper course was to remit matters for fresh consideration where the orders were passed ex parte, subject to filing a reply and making a deposit. At the same time, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders on merits in the absence of a proper reply.

Conclusion: The challenge to the invocation of Section 74 did not succeed on merits, but the writ petitions were remitted for fresh adjudication de novo on condition of filing a reply and depositing 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time.

---