Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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