Shree Hanumant Steel Traders & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner, Circle-5, Division-1,
Background
The petitioners challenged the respective notices issued by the respondent authority under Section 74(9) of the GST Act, 2017, dated 16.10.2025. The notices related to allegations that input tax credit had been availed by issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The petitioners contended that the notices did not contain the foundational facts necessary to support the allegations of fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression.
The respondent authority opposed the petitions, submitting that the notices had appropriately set out the foundational facts and that the petitioners had an efficacious alternative remedy of filing appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Court Observation
The Court, on careful perusal of the impugned notices, found that the authority failed to assign sufficient reasons while issuing the notices under Section 74(9).
Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Tata Steels Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court observed that where an extended limitation period is invoked on allegations of fraud, wilful misrepresentation or suppression, the foundational facts leading to such inference must be evident from the notice itself. Mere use or mechanical recitation of these expressions does not demonstrate application of mind or justify recovery beyond the normal limitation period.
Final Verdict
The High Court held that the impugned notices issued under Section 74(9) dated 16.10.2025 were unsustainable and accordingly quashed the respective notices. The writ petitions were therefore allowed.
The Court, however, granted liberty to the respondent authority to issue fresh notices strictly in accordance with law, if so advised.
Case Referred by Court
Tata Steels Ltd. v. Union of India — Supreme Court of India — 2026
Other Case Law
Pidilite Industries Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Challenge to Order-in-Original under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 involving denial of transitional input tax credit under Section 140 read with Rule 117 of CGST Rules. Issue of violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of verificati
Facts:The petitioner, a manufacturer, transitioned input tax credit into GST reg...
Read MoreSynergy Fertichem Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Whether Sections 129 (detention, seizure and release of goods in transit) and 130 (confiscation of goods and conveyance) of the CGST Act, 2017 are sequential — i.e., whether Section 130 can only be invoked after non-compliance of Section 129(6) — or w
BackgroundThe lead petitioner is a company engaged in import and sale of Ceramic...
Read MoreState of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited
Refund of statutory pre-deposit paid for maintaining an appeal under Section 107(6) of the Jharkhand GST Act, 2017 — whether governed by Section 107(6) read with Section 115, or by Section 54 of the Jharkhand GST Act.
BACKGROUND The assessee had made a statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(...
Read More