HC Quashes GST SCN Issued Under Section 74: No Fraud or Suppression When Tax Was Voluntarily Paid

Court holds that MRF’s prior disclosure of short payment defeats invocation of Section 74; payment made after clarification cannot trigger fraud-based proceedings

Madras HC Quashes GST SCN Under Section 74 for Lack of Fraud or Suppression

Meetu Kumari | Dec 9, 2025 |

HC Quashes GST SCN Issued Under Section 74: No Fraud or Suppression When Tax Was Voluntarily Paid

HC Quashes GST SCN Issued Under Section 74: No Fraud or Suppression When Tax Was Voluntarily Paid

MRF Ltd. and its authorised representative challenged show cause notices issued by the DGGI under Section 74 of the CGST Act, alleging wrongful availment of ITC and short payment of tax on tyre–tube–flap (TTF) supplies. Initially, all three items attracted 28% GST; later, tubes and flaps were reduced to 18%. Industry-wide confusion persisted on whether TTF supplied in strapping form constituted a “composite supply” or individual supplies.

But despite the voluntary disclosure and payment made by MRF, DGGI initiated an investigation and thereafter issued the impugned SCN under Section 74, alleging suppression and invoking Section 39(9) to deny rectification.

Main Issue: Whether the DGGI could invoke Section 74 of the CGST Act despite the assessee’s prior voluntary disclosure and payment, and whether the show cause notice satisfied the statutory ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.

Court Decided: The Court held that Section 74 can be invoked only where tax short payment arises from fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. On examining the record, it found no material indicating fraud or suppression by MRF. The company had on its own accord asked to treat TTF as a composite supply and would thus pay the differential tax. The short payment arose solely from industry-wide confusion regarding tax classification, not from any intent to evade. Since the essential jurisdictional ingredients of Section 74 were absent, the very foundation for issuing a fraud-based SCN failed.

The Court emphasised that the bar on rectification applies only when omissions are discovered “as a result of scrutiny, audit, inspection, or enforcement”, which is not the case here. Thus, the argument that the payment was barred by Section 39(9) was untenable. At the time of issuing the SCN, no tax was due from MRF, and thus initiation of Section 74 proceedings was without jurisdiction. The Court therefore quashed the impugned SCN in full, while leaving open the general question of whether TTF should be treated as a composite or individual supply to be considered in any appropriate proceeding.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
PCIT’s Section 263 revision quashed where AO had made due enquiries on alleged bogus purchases Delhi HC awards 6% interest on VAT refund delayed by over 15 years Delhi HC sets aside GST order passed without proper service of show cause notice CBI Court Sentences Three to 3 Years’ Jail in Rs. 1.18 Crore Excise Duty Rebate Fraud ED arrests former RCOM Director Punit Garg in Rs. 40,000 crore bank fraud probeView All Posts