Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Validity of a show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act turned on whether the department established fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression as the causal basis for short payment/ITC irregularity. The court held that s.74 is jurisdictionally invocable only where such culpable intent is traceable; a notice lacking these foundational allegations and supporting material is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. On facts, the taxpayer had voluntarily intimated its intent to pay the shortfall prior to the enforcement investigation, negating any inference of fraud or suppression; consequently, denial of ITC by invoking the s.39(9) embargo did not arise. The notice was quashed and the petition allowed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.