https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794026 A writ challenge to a GST demand under section 74 failed where the notice alleged wilful suppression, the taxpayer paid after audit objections without filing a reply, and the authorised representative admitted tax, interest and penalty liability before the adjudicating authority. The Court held that prior voluntary payment did not by itself negate invocation of section 74 on these facts, and upheld the demand. It also declined Article 226 interference because the statutory appeal under section 107 was not pursued within limitation and the petitioner had made binding admissions before the authority, making the writ petition unsuitable for maintainability-based relief. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794026 A writ challenge to a GST demand under section 74 failed where the notice alleged wilful suppression, the taxpayer paid after audit objections without filing a reply, and the authorised representative admitted tax, interest and penalty liability before the adjudicating authority. The Court held that prior voluntary payment did not by itself negate invocation of section 74 on these facts, and upheld the demand. It also declined Article 226 interference because the statutory appeal under section 107 was not pursued within limitation and the petitioner had made binding admissions before the authority, making the writ petition unsuitable for maintainability-based relief. Case-Laws GST Mon, 27 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794026