Case Details: R. Chandrasekar vs. Assistant Commissioner (Inspection) (ST) (IU), Tirunelveli (2026) 39 Centax 160 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
- Shri N.Sudalai Muthu, for the Petitioner.
- Shri R.Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the jurisdictional officer under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which related to demands involving tax or input tax credit alleged to involve fraud or similar grounds. It was submitted that Section 74 had been omitted by the amendment made in 2024, and therefore, the order passed under the said provision was not sustainable in law. The department stated that the order had been passed inadvertently under Section 74 instead of Section 74A of the CGST Act and the corresponding provision of the Tamil Nadu GST Act. The proceedings thus came to be questioned on the ground that the statutory provision invoked in the order was no longer in force after the amendment. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that since Section 74 stood omitted by the amendment made in 2024, the impugned order passed under the said provision could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside. It was observed that the proper course would be to treat the impugned order as a show-cause notice so that the proceedings could continue in accordance with the correct statutory provision. The High Court therefore directed the petitioner to file a reply to the impugned order, treating it as a show cause notice. It further directed that after receiving the reply, the jurisdictional officer should pass appropriate orders in accordance with law under the relevant provisions, including Section 74A. The matter was thus disposed of in favour of the assessee.
