• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Supreme Court Dismisses Curative Plea, Upholds Sec 74 Penalty for GST Non-Compliance

SC's Order In The Case of M/s Sriba Nirman Company V/S The Commissioner Guntur, Central Tax and Customs & Ors.

The Supreme Court has rejected a curative petition of a petitioner to reconsider its earlier decision that dismissed their appeals regarding a tax penalty. This ruling upholds a previous decision made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which stated that imposing penalties under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act is appropriate in situations like not filing tax returns or failing to pay taxes.

The bench Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Vikram Nath, concluded that the petition did not fulfil the strict parameters needed for reconsideration of a final judgment. Thereafter, the curative petition was dismissed, and all pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

The curative petition originated from a challenge to a judgment made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court ruled that failing to file required statutory returns, along with not paying taxes, constitutes the suppression of facts. This situation triggers penal provisions under section 74. The taxpayer had previously attempted to obtain relief at the SLP stage and later during review proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stated that there was no basis for interference under the narrow scope of curative jurisdiction as defined in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v/s Ashok Hurra. The Court highlighted that curative petitions are permissible only in exceptional cases that involve gross miscarriages of justice, which were not illustrated in this instance.

With this dismissal, the legal position confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court is reinforced: persistent non-compliance, especially the failure to submit returns and meet tax obligations, can rightfully be regarded as suppression of facts. This justifies extending the limitation period and imposing penalties u/s 74 of the CGST Act.

Case TitleM/s Sriba Nirman Company V/S The Commissioner Guntur, Central Tax
and Customs & Ors.
Case No.:CURATIVE PET(C) No.129/2026
Supreme 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 *

Latest Posts

Tax Offer in 2026

Powering India's Taxation Experts with Innovation

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

Limited Offer, Hurry

New Offer in 2026

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Current GST Due Dates