2025 (8) TMI 1131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reby the total amount of penalty i.e. Rs. 5,98,44,867.00/- has been imposed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 in absence of any allegation of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of tax to evade the tax. Since the limitation period for Section 73(1) i.e. three years had expired, therefore, the respondents have taken action under Section 74(1) in which period of limitation is 5 years. In the show cause notice as well as in final order, there is no such allegation of fraud or any willful misstatement in order to evade the tax has been alleged against the petitioner, therefore, this issue is liable to be decided in a writ petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed below: "14. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order, by- passing the statutory remedies. 15. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, referred to herein above, are concerned, the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts ....