HC Quashes Section 74 GST Proceedings for Lack of Fraud Allegations and Jurisdiction:

HC Quashes Section 74 GST Proceedings for Lack of Fraud Allegations and Jurisdiction

Court holds State GST authorities lacked jurisdiction and failed to establish fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression as mandatory under Section 74.

HC Quashes Section 74 GST Orders for Absence of Fraud and Jurisdiction

authorMeetu KumaridateJan 4, 2026
Last update on Jan 4, 2026
HC Quashes Section 74 GST Proceedings for Lack of Fraud Allegations and Jurisdiction M/s Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. challenged the assessment order dated 31.05.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.01.2025 passed under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, arising from a survey conducted on 22.01.2019. The show cause notice alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit and circular trading.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
The petitioner maintained that all transactions were supported by valid invoices, e-way bills, banking payments, and were duly reflected in statutory returns. It was also contended that the proceedings were initiated by State GST authorities despite the petitioner being under Central GST jurisdiction and without any cross-empowerment. Adverse inference was further drawn solely due to the non-production of toll plaza receipts. Main Issue: Whether proceedings under Section 74 could be sustained in the absence of specific findings of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, and whether State GST authorities had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings without cross-empowerment. HC's Order: The Hon'ble High Court quashed the assessment and appellate orders, holding that Section 74 can be invoked only where fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax is specifically alleged and established, which was absent in the present case.
NFRA Cracks Down on Audit File Lapses: 60-Day Completion Rule, 7-Day Submission Deadline, Many More
The Court found the allegation of circular trading unsupported by evidence and held that adverse inference based solely on the non-production of toll receipts was perverse. It further accepted the jurisdictional objection, noting the absence of any material showing cross-empowerment of State authorities. The writ petition was allowed with a direction to refund any amount deposited within one month. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2166
Up Next

Loading suggestions…