Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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