https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773668 The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, holding that petitioner must pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. Court found Section 74 proceedings legally sustainable despite lack of detailed fraud allegations in show-cause notice, as tax shortfall remained partially unpaid. While petitioner rectified technical errors through filing returns and paying partial tax, complete payment was not made. HC ruled that sufficiency of rectification and appropriateness of Section 74 invocation should be examined in appellate forum. Period of writ petition pendency excluded from limitation for filing appeal. en-us Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2025 08:35:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773668 The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017, holding that petitioner must pursue statutory appeal under Section 107 rather than invoke writ jurisdiction. Court found Section 74 proceedings legally sustainable despite lack of detailed fraud allegations in show-cause notice, as tax shortfall remained partially unpaid. While petitioner rectified technical errors through filing returns and paying partial tax, complete payment was not made. HC ruled that sufficiency of rectification and appropriateness of Section 74 invocation should be examined in appellate forum. Period of writ petition pendency excluded from limitation for filing appeal. Case-Laws GST Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773668