Stay updated
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. K.N. Raj Constructions held that considering the huge difference between bank receipts / GST-reported turnover of Rs. 27.89 crores and the turnover declared in the Income Tax portal of Rs. 166.93 crores, the assessee’s records require forensic examination by the GST Audit Wing …
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GR Infra Projects Limited Ratlam v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 33594/2025, order dated November 21, 2025] held that the impugned Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) issued under Section 74 of the GST Act is prima facie bereft of material particulars as it contains only figures without
CA Aanchal Kapoor prepared a PPT on section 73 vs section 74 under GST : From Jurisdictional Fact to Mechanical Allegation of Fraud – has ‘intend to evade’ lost its meaning?
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S Meerut Steels held that the question of jurisdictional overlap in parallel proceedings under Central GST and State GST Acts is not a pure question of law but involves factual adjudication, and therefore the writ petition challenging the Central GST order before the High Court is not maintainable. The Petitioner may raise the issue through statutory appeal.
Britannia Industries has received a goods and services tax (GST) order demanding Rs 108.5 crore in tax along with an equivalent penalty and applicable interest, the company said in a regulatory filing on Thursday.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. NCS Pearson Inc. held that the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, alleging willful suppression to invoke an extended limitation period, was illegal and without jurisdiction as the Revenue had full knowledge of all facts from the AAR and AAAR proceedings, and the key jurisdictional fact of willful suppression was not satisfied.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GR Infra Projects Limited Ratlam held that the impugned SCN issued under Section 74 of the GST Act is prima facie bereft of material particulars as it contains only figures without disclosing why there has been fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, issued notice returnable in four weeks and stayed further proceedings.
The author would like share his inference drawn on Case: Neeyamo Enterprise Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CTO (Madurai), Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) – Order dated 11.11.2025 (W.P.(MD) Nos. 30453 to 30458 of 2024). This represents Section 74 of CGST Act dealing with non-payment/ short payment due to fraud, willful misstatement, suppression.
THE HON’BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Singh Electrical Store V/s Superintendent CGST and Central Excise, decided on 17-3-2025
THE HON’BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Max Estates Ltd. V/s Union of India, decided on 5-3-2025