https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783696 Proceedings initiated under s. 74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed to plead the mandatory jurisdictional ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts leading to wrongful or excessive input tax credit; absent such averments, the authority could not assume s. 74 jurisdiction, resulting in quashing of the proceedings and consequential orders. On merits, the HC noted that the movement of goods and transactions were reflected in statutory returns (GSTR-1, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B) and tax stood deposited, which was not specifically denied by the State; therefore, adverse inference was unjustified and reliance on SC precedent was inapplicable, leading to allowance of the writ. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2025 07:45:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783696 Proceedings initiated under s. 74 of the SGST Act were held without jurisdiction because the show cause notice failed to plead the mandatory jurisdictional ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts leading to wrongful or excessive input tax credit; absent such averments, the authority could not assume s. 74 jurisdiction, resulting in quashing of the proceedings and consequential orders. On merits, the HC noted that the movement of goods and transactions were reflected in statutory returns (GSTR-1, GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B) and tax stood deposited, which was not specifically denied by the State; therefore, adverse inference was unjustified and reliance on SC precedent was inapplicable, leading to allowance of the writ. Case-Laws GST Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783696