MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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