GST Section 74 Proceedings Valid After Scrutiny Dropped | Calcutta HC Ruling

GST • News • Case Chronicles

GST Section 74 proceedings
Case Details: Amit Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX (2025) 33 Centax 76 (Cal.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.
  • S/Shri Vinay ShraffDev Agarwal and Ms. S. Poddar for the Petitioner
  • S/Shri Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.Tapan Bhanja and Anindya Kanan for the Respondent

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, registered under the CGST Act and the West Bengal GST Act, was subjected to scrutiny of returns under Section 61 for a specified period, which was dropped on the basis of the response furnished. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 74 for the same period. The petitioner challenged the Section 74 proceedings contending that, as the proper officer had not initiated any consequential proceedings after dropping the scrutiny under Section 61(3), no further notice under Section 74 could be issued for the same period. It was submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 74 in such circumstances was impermissible under the statutory scheme. The matter was accordingly placed before the Calcutta High Court. 

High Court Held

The Calcutta High Court held that Section 74 of the CGST Act and the West Bengal GST Act deals with cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression, and that the proper officer may not be in a position during scrutiny under Section 61 to detect such conduct based solely on disclosures made in the return. It was observed that fraudulent activity may be detected subsequently, and the legislature has provided Section 74 to address such cases. The Court found that investigation in the present case had revealed fraudulent activities by the petitioner, making out a specific case of fraud, and that dropping proceedings under Section 61(3) was not an impediment to initiating proceedings under Section 74 for the same period, though it may be an impediment to proceedings under Section 73. The writ petition challenging the order-in-original under Section 74 was dismissed, reinforcing that post-scrutiny detection of fraud can validly trigger Section 74 proceedings. 

List Of Case Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
HC Quashes GST Demand Order for Denial of Hearing | Fresh Notice Directed

GST • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Recovery During GST Search Without SCN Held Illegal—Refund with Interest Ordered | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Copy of CGST (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2025

GST • News • Statutory Scope

November 3, 2025

GSTN Launches ‘Import of Goods’ Module in IMS from Oct 2025

GST • News • Statutory Scope

November 1, 2025

GSTN Bars Filing of GST Returns Beyond 3 Years From Due Date

GST • News • Statutory Scope

October 31, 2025

CBIC Defines Officer Jurisdiction and Monetary Limits for SCNs and Orders Under CGST Act

GST • News • Statutory Scope

October 30, 2025

HC Quashes ITC Demand Order Passed Without Hearing After GST Cancellation

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Dismisses Writ for Delay in Challenging Order Before Filing Refund Claim

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 28, 2025

HC Remands Case Over Inconsistent Refund Orders Passed on Similar Facts

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 28, 2025

HC Upholds GST Goods Detention for Missing Documents at Interception

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 27, 2025