The Last Constitutional Checkpoint Is Not Another Round of Litigation
The Supreme Court's decision in M/s Sriba Nirman Company v. The Commissioner (Appeals), Guntur, Central Tax & Customs and others, 2026-VIL-35-SC, decided on 15.04.2026, is a short order, but it carries an important message for tax litigation. The curative petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as no case was made out within the limited parameters laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another (2002) 4 SCC 388 .
The case is significant because it reminds litigants that a curative petition is neither another appeal nor a second review. It is an extraordinary remedy available only in very rare circumstances. Once a matter has travelled through the High Court, the Supreme Court at the Special Leave Petition stage, and thereafter the review stage, the law expects finality. A curative petition can disturb that finality only when there is a grave miscarriage of justice or a serious defect in the judicial process itself.
The Sriba Nirman case arose out of GST penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The underlying dispute concerned non-filing of monthly GST returns and non-payment of GST. The taxpayer's challenge failed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, then before the Supreme Court at the SLP stage, and finally at the curative stage. The case therefore offers a useful opportunity to understand both the limits of curative jurisdiction and the importance of timely GST compliance.
The GST Penalty Trail: From Compliance Failure to Section 74 Exposure
M/s Sriba Nirman Company was a works contractor. It had raised invoices inclusive of GST, but did not file monthly Form GSTR-3B returns and did not discharge the GST liability in time. The explanation given was that payments received from its client were not sufficient, and therefore GST could not be paid at the relevant time. Later, the petitioner deposited the GST amount in instalments and filed the pending returns.
The department, however, proceeded against the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice for tax, interest and penalties under Sections 74, 122 and 125 of the CGST Act. Section 74 applies where tax has not been paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Thus, Section 74 is not meant for every case of non-payment. It applies when non-payment is accompanied by a serious element of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
The petitioner challenged the penalty proceedings before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2025-VIL-95-AP. dated 29.01.2025. The main contention was that mere non-payment of GST should not automatically be treated as fraud or wilful suppression. The petitioner also relied on the fact that tax had been paid before the issuance of the notice. However, the High Court rejected the challenge and upheld the penalty under Section 74.
Why the High Court Saw More Than Mere Delayed Payment
The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the differences between Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. Section 73 applies where tax has not been paid or short paid for reasons other than fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Section 74, on the other hand, applies where the non-payment is linked with fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.
The High Court accepted the broad principle that every non-payment of tax cannot be treated as evasion by fraud or suppression. This is a very important proposition. Mere delay, financial difficulty or omission may not always justify the serious consequences of Section 74. The authority must look at the facts and see whether there is material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
However, on the facts of Sriba Nirman, the High Court found against the petitioner. The petitioner had neither filed monthly returns nor paid tax with such returns. Under the GST law, filing of monthly returns is a core compliance requirement. Section 39 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 61 of the CGST Rules, requires the filing of GSTR-3B returns for each month and payment of tax along with such returns. The petitioner’s own pleadings showed that the returns had not been filed when they were required to be filed.
The High Court also considered the petitioner’s explanation that its client had not made sufficient payments. The appellate authority had found that the petitioner had received certain payments from its main client, and there was no real impediment in remitting the necessary taxes. On that basis, the finding of wilful suppression was upheld. The High Court concluded that failure to file monthly returns and make necessary tax payments, coupled with the finding of wilful suppression, justified a penalty under Section 74.
The SLP Stage Closed the Ordinary Route of Challenge
After the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. In 2025-VIL-91-SC dated 16.05.2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP. The order records that, after hearing counsel for the petitioner and reviewing the material on record, there was no good reason to interfere with the High Court’s order.
This stage is important because the Supreme Court did not find the High Court’s view fit for interference. Once the SLP was dismissed, the petitioner’s ordinary challenge to the High Court decision came to an end. Thereafter, the petitioner pursued review and then a curative remedy.
A review petition itself is limited. It is not a rehearing of the entire case. Review is generally available only where there is an apparent error on the face of the record or some other recognised ground. When the review also fails, the scope for further challenge becomes even narrower. That is where the concept of curative petition comes in.
Curative Petition: A Judicial Safety Valve with a Very Narrow Opening
A curative petition is an extraordinary remedy before the Supreme Court. It is the last possible judicial remedy after dismissal of a review petition. In simple words, it is a very limited request to the Supreme Court to cure a serious defect in its final judgment, but only in exceptional circumstances.
The concept of curative petition was recognised by the Supreme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and another (2002) 4 SCC 388. The Court held that even after the dismissal of a review petition, a final judgment may be reconsidered in the rarest cases to prevent an abuse of process or to cure a gross miscarriage of justice. However, this power is extremely narrow. It cannot be used to reopen every case where a party is dissatisfied with the result.
A curative petition is therefore not a second appeal. It is not a fresh opportunity to argue the same points again. It is not a device to keep litigation alive indefinitely. It is meant for situations where the judicial process itself suffers from a fundamental defect, such as a violation of natural justice, or circumstances that raise a serious question about the fairness of the decision-making process.
In Sriba Nirman, the Supreme Court examined the curative petition and the relevant documents. It held that no case was made out within the parameters indicated in Rupa Ashok Hurra. The curative petition was therefore dismissed.
The Discipline Behind Finality
The narrow scope of curative jurisdiction is essential for maintaining finality in litigation. Every legal system must balance two values. On one side is the need to correct injustice. On the other side is the need to bring litigation to an end. If every final judgment could be reopened repeatedly, there would be no certainty in law.
Tax litigation especially requires finality. Revenue proceedings affect government collections, business planning, financial statements and commercial certainty. If a taxpayer is allowed to repeatedly reopen concluded proceedings without satisfying strict legal conditions, the system becomes uncertain for both the taxpayer and the department.
At the same time, finality cannot become a shield for grave injustice. That is why the curative petition exists. It acts as a constitutional safety valve. But because it is a safety valve, it cannot become a normal route of challenge. The party filing a curative petition must show something much more serious than disagreement with the judgment. There must be a reason that touches the fairness or integrity of the judicial process itself.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the curative petition in Sriba Nirman reflects this balance. The petitioner had already placed its challenge before the High Court and the Supreme Court. The SLP had been dismissed after hearing counsel and considering the material. The curative petition did not disclose any exceptional ground requiring reopening of the matter.
Section 74 Strategy: Later Payment Does Not Always Cure Earlier Default
Although the Supreme Court’s curative order is brief, the litigation history carries an important message on GST compliance. Section 74 is a serious provision because it deals with cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. Invocation of Section 74 can lead to a heavy penalty, including a penalty equivalent to the tax in appropriate cases.
However, the High Court’s reasoning also makes one point clear: Section 74 cannot be invoked mechanically in every case of non-payment. There must be material to show fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The CBIC has also recognised that mere non-payment of GST, without specific evidence of fraud or suppression to evade tax, should not automatically trigger Section 74.
In Sriba Nirman, the taxpayer's difficulty was that monthly returns were not filed and tax was not paid when required. Non-filing of returns means that required information was not declared in the statutory manner. The High Court treated this, along with other factual findings, as sufficient to uphold wilful suppression. The taxpayer’s later payment of tax did not, by itself, erase the consequences, especially because interest was paid after the notice and the 15% penalty required for pre-notice settlement under Section 74(5) was not paid.
The lesson is that GST compliance is not merely about eventual payment. Timely filing of returns and timely payment of tax are central obligations. Delay may be explainable in some cases, but if returns are not filed and tax is not paid, the taxpayer may face serious consequences depending on the facts.
Pre-Notice Payment: Why Partial Compliance Was Not Enough
One of the important arguments in the case was that tax had been paid before the issuance of the notice. The petitioner contended that once tax was paid, notice under Section 74 should not have been issued. The High Court rejected this argument because the statutory conditions for avoiding notice under Section 74(5) and 74(6) were not fully satisfied.
Under Section 74(5), a person may pay tax, interest and a penalty equivalent to 15% of the tax before service of notice. If this is properly done, Section 74(6) restricts the issuance of notice in respect of the tax so paid. But in this case, while tax was paid before the notice, interest was paid after the notice, and the 15% penalty was not paid. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim the statutory protection from notice.
This is a valuable practical point. In GST matters, partial compliance may not always produce full statutory relief. If the law requires payment of tax, interest, and a prescribed penalty before notice, payment of tax alone may not be sufficient. Taxpayers must carefully examine the exact conditions of the provision they seek to rely upon.
Why the Curative Route Could Not Rescue the Case
The curative petition failed because it did not satisfy the strict conditions required for such an extraordinary remedy. The Supreme Court did not reopen the factual findings relating to non-filing of returns, non-payment of tax and wilful suppression. It also did not treat the matter as one involving any exceptional defect in the judicial process.
The dismissal indicates that the Court saw the matter as concluded litigation, not as a case requiring curative intervention. The High Court had examined the statutory scheme and facts. The Supreme Court had already declined to interfere at the SLP stage. No exceptional ground under Rupa Ashok Hurra was made out.
This is the central legal significance of the decision. A curative petition cannot be filed simply because all earlier remedies have failed. It must show why the final judgment requires correction despite the normal rule of finality. In the absence of such grounds, the Court will not entertain it.
Litigation Management Lessons for Senior Tax Professionals
The Sriba Nirman litigation offers an important lesson in litigation strategy. In tax matters, parties often continue litigation through adjudication, appeal, writ, SLP, review, and curative stages. While every litigant has the right to pursue available remedies, each stage has its own legal limits. The later the stage, the narrower the scope.
A writ petition may allow broader constitutional and jurisdictional arguments. An SLP allows the Supreme Court to consider whether the matter deserves interference. A review petition is narrower. A curative petition is narrower still. Therefore, by the time a matter reaches the curative stage, the party must show something exceptional and not merely repeat earlier submissions.
For taxpayers, the decision is also a reminder that compliance failures should be addressed early and completely. If statutory settlement provisions require payment of tax, interest and reduced penalty, all components must be complied with. If the case involves non-filing of returns, the taxpayer must be prepared to explain why such non-filing should not be treated as suppression of the facts.
For the department, the case also contains a balanced message. Section 74 should not be invoked merely because tax was unpaid. There must be a factual foundation showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax. Where such material exists and is upheld through appellate scrutiny, however, the penalty may survive even repeated challenges.
Closing Principle: Curative Relief Is for Grave Injustice, Not Repeated Reconsideration
The Supreme Court’s order in Sriba Nirman, though brief, is important for understanding the discipline of curative jurisdiction. It confirms that a curative petition is not a routine remedy and cannot be used as one more attempt to reopen concluded GST penalty litigation.
The underlying GST dispute had already been examined by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and then by the Supreme Court at the SLP stage. The curative petition did not show any exceptional ground within the strict framework of Rupa Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 . Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the penalty proceedings sustained in the earlier round remained undisturbed.
In simple terms, the case teaches two lessons. First, GST compliance, especially the timely filing of monthly returns and the payment of tax, cannot be treated lightly. Secondly, once litigation has reached finality, curative jurisdiction will open only in the rarest cases where justice itself demands correction. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not enough.
CAclubindia
