TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitions are being disposed of. 2. This case was 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 impugned orders pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng this, notices in DRC-01 dated 26.06.2024 were issued for the respective tax periods. These notices were also not responded to by the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders have been passed. 9. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that demands have been confirmed in respect of different heads ranging from 7 to 19. 10. The consistent view of this court under similar circumstances has been to remit the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, subject to persons like the petitioner depositing proportionate amounts as a condition for condoning the delay in approaching this Court. The impugned orders in the present Writ Petitions were passed in the month of September 2024 and October 2024. Four Writ Petitions were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respective assessment years, it has been construed as suppression of facts to evade tax, thereby invoking the extended period of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of facts 14. That apart, as held in the above referred case, the department fully relies on the record maintained by the petitioner. In this background, if it appears to the proper officer that tax has not been paid, or has been short paid, or that an erroneous refund has been issued, or if input tax credit has been wrongly availed / utilized, the invocation of machinery under Section 74 can be justified. 15. As far as the Assessment Year 2018-2019, 2019-2020 is concerned, the issue stands covered against the petitioner, even otherwise, in ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 73. This is possible only if a proper reply is available to the notice in DRC-01. 17. In view of the law settled therein and in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 74, I see no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be given any indulgence to challenge the correctness of the impugned orders in these writ petitions in the absence of a proper reply. 18. However, since ex parte orders have been passed, following the consistent view taken in similar circumstances, I am inclined to remit the cases back to the respondent to redo the exercise and pass fresh orders de novo, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for such exercise 19. T....