https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793508 Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the GST enactments was upheld where inspection material, the seigniorage fee paid, and the mismatch between the quantity and value of boulders allegedly extracted and the value declared in GSTR-1 gave a prima facie basis to infer suppression of turnover. The challenge also failed on alleged procedural irregularity, as no defect was found that would vitiate the impugned orders. On that footing, interference with the demand and the Section 74 action was declined. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:46:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793508 Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 74 of the GST enactments was upheld where inspection material, the seigniorage fee paid, and the mismatch between the quantity and value of boulders allegedly extracted and the value declared in GSTR-1 gave a prima facie basis to infer suppression of turnover. The challenge also failed on alleged procedural irregularity, as no defect was found that would vitiate the impugned orders. On that footing, interference with the demand and the Section 74 action was declined. Case-Laws GST Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793508