2026 (6) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 29.12.2025 & 14.11.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents in all the cases. 3. By consent of the parties, the main petitions are taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, the show cause notice was issued by the respondent by wrongly invoking the provisions of Section 74 of the GST Act, 2017 and subsequently, the impugned orders were passed without satisfying the ingredients stated in the said provisions, viz., fraud, wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ovisions of Section 74 is to enable the Assessing Officer to provide sufficient opportunity to an Assessee for filing a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The said provision is not mandatory but only suggestive in nature. In these cases, if the petitioner was unable to file any reply prior to the passing of impugned orders, certainly, he can take a stand on the aspect of limitation. However, even though the notice was issued only three months prior to the passing of impugned orders, the detailed replies were filed by the petitioner and the same were duly considered by the respondents. When such being the case, the aspect of limitation would not come into picture. Hence, he prays for dismissal of these petitions. 9. Heard the learne....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent is supposed to have issued the show cause notice 6 months prior to the date of passing of assessment order. However, in this case, it was issued only 3 months prior to the assessment order, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 74 of the GST Act. 14. As rightly submitted by the respondent, the object of Section 74 is only to enable the Assessing Officer to provide sufficient time to the Assessee's for filing their reply and the said provision is only suggestive but not mandatory in nature. The above contention of the petitioner would have been accepted by this Court only if the petitioner was unable to collect all the relevant documents and file his reply within the 3 months time granted by the respondent. However,....