GST Payer Alleges S. 74 Order issued to Circumvent Limitation prescribed u/s 73: Madras HC allows to Contest on 25% Pre-deposit [Read Order]
According to the petitioner, the order was time-barred and issued without jurisdiction
![GST Payer Alleges S. 74 Order issued to Circumvent Limitation prescribed u/s 73: Madras HC allows to Contest on 25% Pre-deposit [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/28/2055817-gst-payer-alleges-taxscan.webp "GST Payer Alleges S. 74 Order issued to Circumvent Limitation prescribed u/s 73: Madras HC allows to Contest on 25% Pre-deposit [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payer to contest a demand raised under Section 74 GST Act, after the taxpayer alleged that the impugned order was deliberately issued under Section 74 to circumvent the limitation period prescribed under Section 73. The petitioner, Tvl. Saravanan, contended that the impugned order had...
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed a GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) payer to contest a demand raised under Section 74 GST Act, after the taxpayer alleged that the impugned order was deliberately issued under Section 74 to circumvent the limitation period prescribed under Section 73.
The petitioner, Tvl. Saravanan, contended that the impugned order had been deliberately issued under Section 74 to bypass the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 73, rendering the demand time-barred and without jurisdiction.
The petitioner further sought an opportunity to contest the matter on merits, having failed to respond to the initial notices for the relevant assessment year.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
The department counsel asserted that the writ petitions were devoid of merit and deserved to be dismissed on grounds of delay and the petitioner’s failure to exhaust the alternative remedy available under the statute.
After hearing both sides, the Court observed that the circumstances warranted interference and came to the petitioner’s aid, albeit with certain conditions.
JusticeC. Saravanan quashed the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in cash with the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Additionally, the petitioner was directed to file replies to the original show cause notices, treating the quashed orders as corrigendum or addendum to those notices.
The Court further directed the GST authorities to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within six months, while ensuring that the petitioner is given an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The bench made it clear that any failure by the petitioner to comply with the conditions imposed either by not making the pre-deposit or failing to submit the reply would automatically result in the dismissal of the writ petitions, leaving the authorities free to recover the entire tax amount confirmed in the quashed orders.
Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions with these observations, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions and directing both parties to act in compliance with the conditions laid down in its order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
