https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796908 Fresh proceedings under Section 74 remained permissible within two years of communication of the earlier writ order because the final direction expressly allowed renewed action where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax existed. Section 75(3) preserved the consequential period, preventing a construction that would defeat that direction. However, the notice was unsustainable because the issuing adjudicating authority made unnecessary allegations that the assessee had misled the High Court, revealing prejudgment rather than neutral application of mind. Any fresh Section 74 action must be initiated by a different officer, based on jurisdictional facts, with the prescribed opportunity to respond and access relevant documents. en-us Thu, 06 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Aug 2026 08:20:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796908 Fresh proceedings under Section 74 remained permissible within two years of communication of the earlier writ order because the final direction expressly allowed renewed action where fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression to evade tax existed. Section 75(3) preserved the consequential period, preventing a construction that would defeat that direction. However, the notice was unsustainable because the issuing adjudicating authority made unnecessary allegations that the assessee had misled the High Court, revealing prejudgment rather than neutral application of mind. Any fresh Section 74 action must be initiated by a different officer, based on jurisdictional facts, with the prescribed opportunity to respond and access relevant documents. Case-Laws GST Thu, 06 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796908