2026 (7) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of. 2. These cases were heard along with a batch of 250 Writ Petitions and as one of the 53 Writ Petitions which were finally heard on the larger issue regarding the challenge to the proceedings under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. 3. By a Common Order today in W.P.No.2142 of 2026 [Turbo Energy Private Limited], W.P.Nos.35967, 35970, 35974 and 35976 of 2024 [Fastenex Private Limited] and W.P.Nos.14487, 14492 and 14500 of 2025 [Ispahani Estates Private Limited], a detailed order has been passed insofar as the invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. 4. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the respective....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is submitted that the Impugned Orders merely use the term "willfulness" in the conclusion for sustaining the demands under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments. They are reproduced below:- W.P.Nos.33258, 33262, 33268 and 33272 of 2025 "The claim of ITC under IGST was not proved, and the tax due on the import of service was not paid. This shows the willfulness on the part of the taxable persons." W.P.No.33275 of 2025 "The reconciliation of ITC under CGST and SGST was not proved, and the tax due on the import of service was not paid. This shows the willfulness on the part of the taxable person." 10. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would fairly concede that for the Tax Period 2018-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and other Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 440. 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents. 17. There is no dispute that the Petitioner has availed Input Tax Credit in excess of the amount reflected in GSTR-2A for discharging the tax liability in GSTR-3B. 18. Thus, there are prima facie indications that the Petitioner had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit and utilized the same to discharge the tax liability in GSTR-3B. Thus, there is suppression of fact with an intention to evade tax. 1....