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

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.
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.
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
2166My Recent Articles
- ITAT Condones 648-Day Delay After Assessee Lost Family During COVID, Restores AppealPremium
- ITAT Quashes Rs 2 Crore Penalty as Time-Barred; Limitation Starts from AO’s Reference, Not Show-Cause NoticePremium
- ITAT Remands Appeal After Finding NFAC Ignored 89 Pages of Evidence on Cash Deposits and Flat Improvement CostPremium
- ITAT Grants Fresh Opportunity in Rs 2.63 Crore Foreign Bank Credit Addition CasePremium
- ITAT Deletes Section 68 Addition on Explained Demonetisation Cash DepositsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








