Disparity between seigniorage fee paid and supply value declared in GSTR-1 justifies invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act
Court :
Madras High Court
Brief :
The Hon'ble Madras High Court in KPR Enterprises v. State Tax Officer [W.P. Nos. 35453, 35458 and 35463 of 2024 dated June 12, 2026] dismissed the writ petitions challenging the assessment orders passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the CGST Act")/ the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the TNGST Act") and held that where the assessee has paid a huge amount towards seigniorage fee but has under-declared the value of outward supply in Form GSTR-1, a prima facie case is made out for invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act, since the expression used in both Section 73 and Section 74 of the CGST Act is "where it appears". However, liberty was granted to the assessee to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days.
Citation :
W.P. Nos. 35453, 35458 and 35463 of 2024 dated June 12, 2026
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Community
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited Judgements Access
- Profile Visitors
- Link Social Profiles
- Featured Job Posts
- Pro Badge
- Expert GST Guidance
- Unlimited Forum Replies
- Download Content in PDF
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience. 07941056694
Judgement posted by
Bimal Jain
Service
FCA, FCS LLB with21 Yrs of Experience inTaxation Indirect and Direct: Education Qualification: B.Com (Hons) Chartered Accountants Company Secretary LLB Qualified SAP FI/CO Consultants Professional Membership: Chairmanof Indirect Tax Committee of PHD Chamber of Commerce Member of Indirec ... Read more
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
CAclubindia
