• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Orissa HC Quashes GST Penalty Under Section 74 Citing Jurisdictional Error

Orissa HC's Order in The Case of Narayan Pradhan vs. Asst. Commissioner, GST and CE

On behalf of petitioner Mr Harichandan, the advocate appears and said that the impugned is Show cause notice on 19th February 2024 that has the purported finding of misstatement made by his client, to underpay the tax issued under sub-section (l) in section 74 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The provision was invoked to take the extended duration of limitation though no allegation of misstatement in the SCN was there.

Situations are been addressed by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017’s Section 74 where the taxes are not, paid in full, or incorrectly refunded, or in which input tax credits (ITCs) are improperly used or obtained as a consequence of fraud, deliberate misrepresentation.

It is been comprehended that there has been a jurisdictional error that proceeds to the root of the impugned order, the division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice, and Justice M.S. Sahoo set aside on interference. He also aspires to interim protection.

On behalf of revenue Mr. Satapathy, advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears and furnished that there is a clear finding of the misstatement. The tax rate was intended to be applied at a lower rate.

Read Also: Orissa HC Stays GST Notice U/S 74 Consolidating Multiple AY, Citing Karnataka HC Ruling

Acknowledging the submission of jurisdictional error going to the root of the impugned order, there is a necessity for the writ petition to be heard.

When a tax authority initiates proceedings or takes action beyond its legally defined area of authority then a jurisdictional error under GST arises. If a state officer furnishes a notice for a matter under the Central GST jurisdiction, or vice versa.

Recommended: Orissa HC Sets Aside Tax Penalty Order Under Section 74 for Overlooking Assessee’s GST Payments

If a lower authority manages a case directed for a higher authority. If an officer from a distinct state or region furnishes a notice. When a matter pertinent to a regular is managed under the composition scheme.

Case TitleNarayan Pradhan vs. Asst. Commissioner, GST and CE
CitationW.P.(C) No.691 of 2025
Date31.01.2025
For PetitionerMr. P.K. Harichandan
For RespondentsMr. T.K. Satapathy
Orissa High CourtRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

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

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Current GST Due Dates