Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

CGST Act | Proceedings under Section 74 require a prima facie belief of fraud or wilful mis-statement: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice

01 October 2024 4:11 PM

By: sayum


Allahabad High Court in HCL Infotech Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax quashed a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The court ruled that the notice lacked the essential allegation of fraud or wilful mis-statement, making it jurisdictionally invalid.

HCL Infotech Ltd., the petitioner, had transferred its unutilized CENVAT credit to the GST regime following the introduction of GST in July 2017. The company initially faced proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act for allegedly claiming excessive Input Tax Credit (ITC). After presenting its case, the proceedings were dropped by the tax authorities in December 2023.

Despite this, the tax department issued a fresh Show Cause Notice under Section 74 in August 2024, alleging that the petitioner had availed excessive ITC amounting to ₹1.31 crores. HCL challenged this notice on the grounds that the new proceedings were not supported by any allegation of fraud or wilful mis-statement, as required under Section 74.

The primary legal issue was whether the Show Cause Notice under Section 74 could be valid if it did not contain a specific allegation of fraud, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts. The court examined the difference between Section 73 and Section 74 of the CGST Act:

Section 73: Covers cases of excess ITC or tax discrepancies that occur due to reasons other than fraud.

Section 74: Deals with tax discrepancies arising from fraud, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts and provides for an extended limitation period.

The court held that Section 74 requires a prima facie belief that fraud or wilful mis-statement was involved. In this case, the Show Cause Notice merely claimed excessive ITC without mentioning any fraudulent intent.

The court emphasized that the lack of specific allegations of fraud or wilful mis-statement in the Show Cause Notice was a critical flaw. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench observed:

“Section 74 comes into play when the excessive Input Tax Credit has been availed due to some fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts.”

Since the notice did not meet this threshold, the court concluded that the proceedings lacked jurisdiction. The ruling clarified that tax authorities cannot invoke Section 74 without first establishing fraud or wilful mis-statement.

The Allahabad High Court quashed the Show Cause Notice, allowing the tax department to issue a fresh notice only if it could substantiate its claims of fraud or wilful mis-statement. The judgment reinforced the procedural safeguards required under the CGST Act for initiating proceedings under Section 74.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2024

HCL Infotech Ltd. vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax​.

Latest Legal News