Accu Iconic Mark Private Limited, sec 103, Gurugram (2026)

27/08/2026

# # # Case Summary

**Extended GST limitation under Section 74 cannot be sustained merely by making a bald allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.** Section 74 is specifically meant for cases where the non-payment/short-payment of tax or wrongful ITC is **by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax**. The statutory distinction between Section 73 and Section 74 is therefore important. ([CBIC GST][1])

Recent judicial reasoning has emphasized that the Department cannot simply invoke Section 74 to take advantage of the longer limitation period when the underlying facts actually fall under Section 73. The notice should disclose the **specific material and factual basis** for the allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression. ([Indian Kanoon][2])

Where the ordinary Section 73 limitation has already expired, a subsequent Section 74 notice may be vulnerable if the alleged fraud/suppression is not properly established. Courts have also cautioned that a composite or protective notice cannot be used merely to bypass the statutory limitation applicable under Section 73. ([Indian Kanoon][2])

# # # Expert Advice

**1. Examine the SCN first:**
Check whether the notice merely uses words such as *“fraud,” “wilful misstatement”* or *“suppression”* or actually explains **what was suppressed, when it was suppressed, how it was suppressed and how it resulted in tax evasion**.

**2. Challenge limitation separately:**
If the Section 73 limitation has expired, limitation should be raised as a **specific preliminary legal objection**, rather than only contesting the tax demand on merits.

**3. Demand evidence:**
The Department should have a factual and evidentiary foundation for invoking Section 74. Recent decisions have stressed that mere non-payment or a tax discrepancy, by itself, does not automatically establish fraud or suppression. ([Indian Kanoon][2])

**4. Check the relevant dates carefully:**
Verify the financial year, annual-return due date, applicable statutory extensions/exclusions, date of SCN and the statutory deadline for adjudication. Section 73 generally carries a three-year adjudication period, while Section 74 provides a five-year period in cases falling within its fraud/suppression framework. ([CBIC GST][3])

**5. Prepare a factual reply:**
The reply should demonstrate that the relevant transactions were disclosed in returns/books/documents, there was no deliberate withholding of information, and the Department has not established an intent to evade tax.

**Bottom Line:**

> **Section 74 is not a mechanism to revive an otherwise time-barred Section 73 demand. The extended limitation must be supported by the statutory ingredients of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression, backed by specific facts and evidence.** ([Indian Kanoon][2])

[1]: https://cbic-gst.gov.in/hindi/CGST-bill-e.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Goods & Service Tax, CBIC, Government of India :: The Central Goods and Services Tax Act"
[2]: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18820311/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax vs M/S Albatross Builders And Developers ... on 24 April, 2026"
[3]: https://cbic-gst.gov.in/aces/Documents/faq-on-gst.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "(ii) The SCN has to be adjudicated within at period of three years from the due date of filing of annual return. The SCN is required to be issued at least three months prior to the time limit set for adjudication. {sec.73(2&10)}"

26/08/2026

# # # Case Summary

**M/s G.R. Infra Projects Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. — Supreme Court, 19 August 2026**

The Supreme Court held that the **extended limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be invoked mechanically** merely by using expressions such as “fraud” or “concealment of facts.” The Show Cause Notice itself must contain the **specific facts, circumstances and material** forming the basis for alleging fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. ([LegalRepublic][1])

The Court further held that deficiencies in the original notice **cannot subsequently be cured through a counter-affidavit or pleadings before the Court**. Where the normal limitation period under Section 73 has expired, an inadequately founded Section 74 notice cannot be sustained merely by attempting to supplement its allegations later. The Supreme Court consequently set aside the impugned notice and the High Court order. ([LegalRepublic][1])

# # # Expert Advice

1. **Examine the SCN first:** Check whether the notice clearly explains *what conduct* constitutes fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression and why the extended period is applicable.

2. **Do not accept generic allegations:** Mere phrases like “fraud,” “concealment” or “suppression of facts” without supporting particulars can be specifically challenged. ([TaxGuru][2])

3. **Raise limitation as a preliminary objection:** If the normal limitation period has expired, clearly calculate the relevant dates and challenge the Department's jurisdiction to invoke the extended period.

4. **Preserve documentary evidence:** Keep GST returns, invoices, e-way bills, reconciliations, correspondence and departmental communications ready to demonstrate that there was no deliberate suppression or wilful misstatement.

5. **Challenge defects in the SCN itself:** The Department should not be permitted to improve a deficient notice later through an affidavit or subsequent pleading. ([LegalRepublic][1])

**Key Takeaway:**
**Section 74 is not a shortcut to overcome GST limitation. The Department must establish the factual foundation for fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression within the four corners of the SCN itself.**

[1]: https://www.legalrepublic.in/supreme-court/gr-infra-projects-cgst-section-74-scn-limitation-supreme-court-2026/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "GST Show Cause Notice Quashed: Fraud Must Appear in the Notice, Not in a Counter Affidavit | Legal Republic"
[2]: https://taxguru.in/goods-and-service-tax/section-74-cannot-invoked-word-fraud-sc.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Section 74 Cannot Be Invoked by Merely Using the Word “Fraud”: SC"

10/08/2026

# # 📌 CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court **declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision** allowing condonation of a **418-day delay** in filing a writ appeal against the order of a Single Judge.

The High Court had exercised its discretion to condone the delay, and the Supreme Court, while dismissing the **Special Leave Petition (SLP)**, found no sufficient reason to disturb that decision.

# # # ⚖️ Key Legal Takeaway

* A substantial delay does not automatically defeat an appeal.
* Courts may condone delay where the circumstances and explanation justify a liberal approach.
* The High Court’s discretionary order was allowed to remain undisturbed.
* Dismissal of the SLP means the **418-day delay condonation order continues to operate**.

# # 💼 EXPERT ADVICE

1. **Explain every day of delay:** The applicant should provide a clear and credible explanation covering the entire period of delay.
2. **Maintain documentary evidence:** Medical records, correspondence, administrative approvals, professional advice and other supporting documents should be preserved.
3. **Avoid casual delay:** Condonation is discretionary and should not be treated as an automatic right.
4. **Act promptly:** Once the reason causing the delay ends, the appeal should be filed without further unnecessary delay.
5. **Show bona fide conduct:** Courts are more likely to adopt a liberal approach where the delay is genuine and there is no deliberate negligence or mala fide intention.

**Practical Advice:** In any delayed appeal, the strongest application is one that combines a **day-wise explanation + supporting documents + immediate action after the impediment is removed**.

08/08/2026

# # CASE SUMMARY

**Valuation after rejection of books of account – State PWD rates preferred over CPWD rates**

Where the books of account are rejected and the Assessing Officer relies upon a **District Valuation Officer (DVO) report** for determining the value of construction/property, the valuation methodology and appropriate benchmark rates become important.

In this case, the **CIT(A) questioned the valuation method adopted by the DVO**, although the procedure of obtaining the valuation report was not itself disputed. The issue before the Court was whether **CPWD rates or State PWD rates** should be adopted for valuation.

The High Court held that **State PWD rates were the appropriate basis for valuation instead of CPWD rates**. The Revenue challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, but the **Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed**, leaving the High Court's view undisturbed.

# # # KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE

**When valuation is required after rejection of books of account, the applicable local/state PWD rates should be considered rather than mechanically applying CPWD rates.**

# # EXPERT ADVICE

* If books of account are rejected, carefully examine the **DVO's valuation report and methodology**.
* Verify whether the DVO has applied **State PWD/local prevailing rates** or higher CPWD rates.
* Any valuation based on CPWD rates should be **properly challenged where State PWD rates are more appropriate to the location and circumstances**.
* Maintain construction bills, invoices, measurement records, approved plans and other supporting documents to substantiate the actual cost.
* If an addition is made solely on the basis of an inappropriate DVO valuation, the assessee should consider challenging the **valuation methodology and rate adopted**, not merely the final valuation figure.
* The dismissal of the SLP means the High Court's view remained **undisturbed in the matter**, strengthening the argument for appropriate State PWD rates in comparable valuation disputes.

**Practical takeaway:**
👉 **Book rejection does not give the Department an unrestricted right to adopt any valuation rate. The valuation must be based on a reasonable and legally appropriate benchmark, with State PWD rates preferred over CPWD rates in the circumstances addressed by this decision.**

07/08/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's decision regarding the eligibility of **Regional Rural Banks (RRBs)** to claim deduction under **Section 80P of the Income-tax Act**. The case involved the interpretation of the statutory deeming provisions under the Regional Rural Banks Act and whether RRBs should be treated as co-operative societies for the purpose of Section 80P. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Supreme Court expressly kept all questions of law open, meaning the legal issue has not been finally settled and the High Court's decision continues to operate.

# # # **Expert Advice**

Regional Rural Banks claiming deduction under **Section 80P** should continue to follow the applicable High Court ruling, as it remains effective. However, since the Supreme Court has not given a final verdict on the legal issue, taxpayers should maintain complete documentation supporting their claim and closely monitor future judicial developments. Before filing returns or responding to tax proceedings, it is advisable to seek professional tax advice to ensure compliance with the prevailing legal position.

06/08/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order in a case where the assessment order was already under challenge in pending proceedings. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Court clarified that the petitioner is free to continue pursuing the pending proceedings before the appropriate forum. The dismissal of the SLP does not extinguish or prejudice the existing legal challenge to the assessment order. All pending applications were accordingly disposed of, leaving the merits of the assessment dispute to be decided in the ongoing proceedings.

---

# # # **Expert Advice**

Taxpayers should note that dismissal of an SLP against an interim or procedural High Court order does not necessarily amount to a decision on the merits of the assessment. Where assessment proceedings are already pending before the competent authority or appellate forum, taxpayers should continue to pursue those remedies diligently by filing all necessary documents, complying with procedural requirements, and attending hearings on time. The focus should remain on substantiating the case on merits, as the legal challenge remains alive and available for adjudication.

05/08/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

**Issue:**
Whether exemption-related issues can be treated as finally decided when certain residual grounds are still pending before the Single Judge.

**Summary:**
The Court held that the exemption dispute has **not attained finality** because important residual issues remain pending before the Single Judge. It was further clarified that the dismissal of an earlier Departmental Special Leave Petition (SLP) **does not result in the merger** of the High Court's judgment with the Supreme Court's order. Therefore, a subsequent decision favourable to the assessee may still be placed before the Single Judge and can influence the final outcome. The Supreme Court closed the present SLPs while **preserving the parties' liberty** to challenge the reference order after the Single Judge finally disposes of the pending proceedings.

---

# # # **Expert Advice**

* **No Final Conclusion Yet:** Taxpayers should not treat the exemption issue as conclusively decided until the Single Judge disposes of all pending grounds.
* **Monitor Future Judgments:** Any favourable judicial precedent delivered before the final hearing should be brought on record, as it may significantly impact the decision.
* **Dismissal of SLP Is Not Final Approval:** An SLP dismissal does not automatically affirm the High Court's reasoning under the doctrine of merger unless the Supreme Court expressly decides the issue on merits.
* **Preserve Legal Rights:** Parties should maintain all relevant documents and be prepared to exercise the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to challenge the reference order after the final adjudication.
* **Strategic Tax Planning:** Taxpayers facing similar exemption disputes should seek professional advice before altering their tax positions, as the legal issue remains sub judice and the final outcome may affect future assessments.

04/08/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

* A penalty notice was issued under **Section 271(1)(c)** alleging either **concealment of income** or **furnishing inaccurate particulars**, without clearly specifying the exact charge.
* The assessee challenged the validity of the notice on the ground that it was **ambiguous and defective**.
* The **High Court** ruled on the matter, and the Revenue filed a **Special Leave Petition (SLP)** before the Supreme Court.
* The **Supreme Court dismissed the SLP** and declined to interfere with the High Court's decision.
* However, the Court **kept the question of law open**, meaning it did **not lay down a final legal principle** regarding the validity of ambiguous penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).

---

# # # **Expert Advice**

* Always verify that a **penalty notice clearly specifies the exact charge**—whether it is for **concealment of income** or **furnishing inaccurate particulars**.
* If the notice is **vague or ambiguous**, evaluate whether it can be challenged based on procedural defects and principles of natural justice.
* Since the **Supreme Court has left the legal issue open**, each case should be assessed on its own facts and the applicable High Court precedents.
* Taxpayers should maintain complete documentation and seek professional advice before responding to or contesting any penalty notice under **Section 271(1)(c)**.

03/08/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

The Supreme Court considered challenges to the **Orders-in-Original** relating to the **Financial Years 2021–2022, 2022–2023, and 2023–2024**, along with an order dated **25.06.2026**. After hearing the matter, the Court **issued notice** and granted an **interim stay on the operation of the challenged orders** until the next date of hearing. As a result, the Orders-in-Original will remain inoperative until further directions are issued by the Supreme Court.

---

# # # **Expert Advice**

Where the Supreme Court has stayed the operation of assessment or adjudication orders, taxpayers should retain all relevant records and continue complying with ongoing statutory obligations. The interim stay offers temporary protection from the effect of the impugned orders, but it does not amount to a final decision on the merits. Businesses should closely monitor future hearings and be prepared to take appropriate action depending on the Supreme Court's final ruling.

01/08/2026

# # # **Case Summary**

The case concerned the maintainability of a writ petition challenging an **Input Tax Credit (ITC) penalty order**. The High Court held that the taxpayer should first exhaust the **statutory appellate remedy** available under the GST law instead of directly approaching the High Court through a writ petition. To ensure fairness, the Court directed that the **time spent in pursuing the writ petition would be excluded while computing the limitation period** for filing the statutory appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP), thereby leaving the High Court's approach undisturbed and reaffirming the importance of following the prescribed appellate mechanism.

---

# # # **Expert Advice**

* Always prefer the **statutory appellate remedy** before filing a writ petition against GST assessment or penalty orders.
* If a writ petition has already been filed in good faith, seek **exclusion of the time spent** in those proceedings while calculating the limitation period for appeal, where legally permissible.
* File appeals within the prescribed time limits and maintain complete records of all legal proceedings.
* Obtain professional tax advice at the earliest stage to avoid procedural delays and protect your legal rights.

Accu Iconic Mark Private Limited

27/08/2026

26/08/2026

10/08/2026

08/08/2026

07/08/2026

06/08/2026

05/08/2026

04/08/2026

03/08/2026

01/08/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request