High Court Declines Conversion of Section 74 Proceedings to Section 73 in Absence of Documentary Evidence

The Gujarat High Court rejects the petitioner’s prayer to convert the order from Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, to Section 73 of the CGST Act in the absence of documentary evidence.

The High Court of Gujarat has delivered its judgement on a writ petition filed by the R B Pandey and Sons against the Assistant Commissioner, Central CGST and Central Excise, Division IX (Ankleshwar). The decision was announced on February 13, 2026, by the Honourable Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi. The key issue concerns whether the petitioner is eligible to convert the order from Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to Section 73 of the CGST Act.

Basically, in the present case, the petitioner had prayed the court to direct the tax authorities to treat the Order-in-Original No. 47/OIO/GST/Div-IX/AC/2022-23 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18, as an order passed under Section 73 of the Act. The impugned order has raised a demand amounting to Rs. 79.34 lakh on the petitioner. The petitioner had sought this conversion to claim benefits under Section 128A of the CGST Act, including a possible waiver of interest or penalty.

Previously, the court had asked the petitioner to produce a relevant document proving he is eligible for the conversion. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence. The adjudicating authority had already recorded findings that the petitioner failed to produce mandatory evidence for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC), such as debit notes, bills of entry, tax invoices of input service distributors, etc. Which concluded that ITC had been incorrectly and fraudulently claimed without any receipt of goods or services.

To support his case, the petitioner had cited a separate order dated July 24, 2023, where proceedings were initiated under Section 73 for the financial year 2018-19. However, when the court analysed the order, it found that the petitioner had furnished all the relevant documentary evidence in the said case, like GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, unlike in the present case.

Considering the aforesaid findings, the Court refused to convert the order in the absence of documentary evidence and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.