This compilation indexes twelve rulings — from multiple High Courts and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal — that engaged Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and corresponding State GST enactments) between January 2026 and July 2026. The cases span Gujarat, Telangana, Karnataka, Bombay (including the Nagpur Bench), and Tripura jurisdictions, and raise a range of procedural and substantive challenges: limitation periods for show cause notices, clubbing of tax periods, ITC blockage, demands confirmed against public institutions, and the interplay of Section 74(1) with allied provisions. This index is intended for in-house GST counsels, Big-4 indirect tax teams, and litigation researchers who need a structured entry point into recent Section 74(1) developments.

Research index only — not legal advice. This page summarises publicly available court orders for research and reference purposes. Nothing here constitutes legal, tax, or professional advice. Readers must verify each ruling against the full judgment and consult qualified counsel before acting on any information.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (mirrored in the corresponding State GST Acts) empowers a proper officer to issue a show cause notice where it appears that tax has not been paid, has been short-paid, has been erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. The provision requires the proper officer to serve the notice before the expiry of five years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax short-paid or the input tax credit wrongly availed relates. The demand confirmed under this provision carries a mandatory penalty equal to the tax amount, distinguishing it from the parallel track under Section 73 which applies in the absence of fraud or wilful misstatement.

The 12 rulings

1. Shahedabegum Irshadahmed Chaudhary vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1), 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (R/Special Civil Application No. 10294 of 2026) was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad by the legal heir of a deceased person against the State of Gujarat. Per the source preview, the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus; the precise substantive relief sought and the court's final directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

2. M/S Aarya Metals vs The State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1), 16(2), 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In R/Special Civil Application No. 7535 of 2026, the petitioners' counsel submitted at the outset that the issue involved was squarely covered by this Court's earlier decision in Aarti Enterprise vs. State of Gujarat, (2026) 39 Centax 31 (Gujarat), a proposition the learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to controvert. The matter accordingly proceeded on the basis that the present petition was governed by that precedent; the detailed operative directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

3. Sri Shekhar Chandra Podder vs The Union Of India Represented By The

Bench: Tripura High Court
Date: 30 June 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 285 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Tripura at Agartala by the proprietor of M/S Shekhar Chandra Podder (GSTIN: 16AEYPP1732Q1ZL) against the Union of India and multiple Central and State GST authorities. The appeal was filed against actions taken by respondent authorities; the substantive grounds and the court's final directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

4. Mis.Bengal Cold Rollers Private vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 25 June 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1), 74(2), 75(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Writ Petition No. 19768 of 2026, the petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 28.03.2026 passed by respondent No. 1 for the tax period April 2019 – March 2020, as well as the show cause notice dated 18.10.2025 for the same tax period. Among the grounds taken, it was argued that the show cause notice was issued less than the six-month period contemplated under Section 74(2) of the Act, and that it was also issued after the 30-day period fixed by this court in earlier writ petitions; the court's operative directions on these grounds are not disclosed in the available source extract.

5. University Of Mumbai vs Union Of India And Others

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 27 April 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1), 122
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Writ Petition No. 4389 of 2025, the University of Mumbai challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution the order-in-original dated 27 January 2025 along with the Summary Order dated 28 January 2025, whereby a GST demand of Rs. 16,90,05,337/- was confirmed against the petitioner under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the corresponding Maharashtra GST provisions. The petition was heard finally by consent of parties after being reserved on 23 April 2026 and pronounced on 27 April 2026; the operative relief granted or declined is not disclosed in the available source extract.

6. M/S Nirmithi Kendra vs The Union Of India

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 7 April 2026
Sections engaged: 73(9), 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 201097 of 2026, T-RES) was filed before the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court by M/S Nirmithi Kendra, Bidar, through its Project Manager, against the Union of India, the State of Karnataka, the GST Council, and multiple Central and State tax authorities. The appeal was filed against actions taken by respondent GST authorities; the specific substantive grounds and the court's operative directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

7. M/S. Shree Balaji Traders Thr. Prop vs The GST Commissioner, Nagpur-Ii, And

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 27 February 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Writ Petition No. 1829 of 2026 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, M/s. Shree Balaji Traders, Dabki Road, Akola (through its proprietor) challenged proceedings before the GST Commissioner, Nagpur-II. Per the source preview, the court issued notice and the petitioner's counsel raised arguments relating to the year-by-year operation of time limits; the full substantive findings and the court's operative directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

8. M/S. Marfani Steel Impex, Thr vs The Prin. Commissioner, Central Goods

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 13 February 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2026 before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, the petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 31.01.2023 issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by respondent No. 2 (Additional Commissioner, CGST & CX, Nagpur-I), and the consequent order dated 26.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 3. Per the source preview, the petitioner's argument included a challenge to the clubbing of tax periods; the court's operative directions on that challenge are not disclosed in the available source extract.

9. Niket Bipinbhai Patel Through Power Of vs Assistant Commissioner (A.E.)

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 10 February 2026
Sections engaged: 17(5)(d), 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In R/Special Civil Application No. 18068 of 2025, the petitioner challenged the show-cause notice dated 28.10.2025 issued under Section 74(1) of the GST Act, 2017 by the Assistant Commissioner (A.E.), CGST-Central Excise, Vadodara-II Commissionerate. A further prayer sought direction to the respondent to unblock Input Tax Credit; the court's operative directions on both the notice and the ITC unblocking prayer are not disclosed in the available source extract.

10. Dhiraj Industries Thru Mr Vinodkumar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Ministry

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 4 February 2026
Sections engaged: 16, 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Writ Petition No. 9064 of 2025, Dhiraj Industries challenged under Article 226 the Order-in-Original dated 04 September 2024 passed by Respondent No. 3, which denied Input Tax Credit of Rs. 3,29,944/- on the ground that it was wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud and wilful misstatement/suppression of facts, as the supplier Chandan Enterprises had its registration cancelled and was declared a non-genuine taxpayer (NGTP). A Notice in FORM GST DRC-01 bearing Reference No. ZD2707240787510 dated 30 July 2024 had been issued intimating that tax, interest and penalty for the period 2017–2018 amounting to Rs. 12,00,995/- was payable; the court's operative directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

11. Vadodara-Ii vs Netafim Irrigation India Pvt Ltd

Bench: Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Date: 29 January 2026
Sections engaged: 66C(2), 73(1), 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: In Service Tax Appeal No. 10712 of 2020-DB (arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-02-APP-031-2020-21 dated 22.06.2020), the department (Commissioner of C.E. & S.T., Vadodara-II) filed an appeal before the West Zonal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Ahmedabad, challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 22.06.2020 which had allowed the respondent's appeal and set aside a demand of service tax (including Swachh Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess) confirmed by the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 14.01.2020; the Tribunal's final decision in the present appeal is not disclosed in the available source extract.

12. M/S M C R Marketing vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Central

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 January 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 5739 of 2025, T-RES) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru by M/S M C R Marketing (GSTIN: 29AIYPT4994Q1ZF), represented by its sole proprietrix, against the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Audit Circle-3, Mysore Audit Commissionerate, and two other respondents. The appeal was filed against actions taken by Central Tax audit authorities; the specific substantive grounds advanced and the court's operative directions are not disclosed in the available source extract.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary challenge route. Across the cases sourced, taxpayers consistently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the respective High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge Section 74(1) show cause notices and assessment orders, reflecting a pattern of pre-adjudication or post-order constitutional challenges rather than exclusive reliance on the statutory appellate hierarchy.
Procedural limitation and timing arguments. In at least one case (Bengal Cold Rollers, Case 4), the challenge expressly raised the argument that the show cause notice was issued within the six-month exclusionary window under Section 74(2), as well as outside a court-fixed deadline. In another case (Marfani Steel Impex, Case 8), the clubbing of tax periods was put in issue. These timing-based grounds appear as a recurrent procedural theme across the compilation.
ITC blockage and supplier-side irregularities. Multiple cases involve the denial or blockage of input tax credit — either because a supplier was declared a non-genuine taxpayer (Dhiraj Industries, Case 10) or because an ITC unblocking prayer was combined with a notice challenge (Niket Bipinbhai Patel, Case 9) — indicating that ITC-linked demands under Section 74(1) are a significant litigation driver in this period.
Precedent-driven disposal. The Aarya Metals case (Case 2) illustrates a disposal approach where the Gujarat High Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by its own earlier ruling in Aarti Enterprise vs. State of Gujarat, (2026) 39 Centax 31 (Gujarat), with the Government Pleader unable to controvert the precedent. This reflects a pattern of High Courts disposing of similar Section 74(1) challenges by reference to binding or persuasive coordinate bench decisions.
Geographic spread and institutional diversity of petitioners. The rulings span Gujarat, Maharashtra (including Nagpur Bench), Karnataka (including Kalaburagi Bench), Telangana, and Tripura, and the petitioners include an individual's legal heir, proprietorships, private limited companies, a public university, and government revenue authorities — indicating that Section 74(1) litigation is not confined to a single class of taxpayer or jurisdiction.

How to use this compilation

This index is a structured entry point for identifying recent judicial activity around Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Because all twelve source previews in this compilation are procedural or partial extracts, researchers should treat this index as a discovery tool — not a substitute for the full judgment. Each ruling should be located on the official court portal, indiankanoon.org, or the relevant High Court's cause-list system before being cited or relied upon. Pay particular attention to whether the court passed interim orders versus final orders, since writ petitions at the admission stage may look similar to disposed matters in a short extract.

Before placing weight on any ruling listed here, verify whether the order has been stayed, reversed, or further appealed. High Court orders under Article 226 in GST matters are frequently subjected to intra-court appeals (Letters Patent / Division Bench appeals) or challenged before the Supreme Court by the aggrieved party. Similarly, Tribunal orders may be the subject of High Court references on questions of law. The date of order recorded here reflects the date in the source data; researchers should check for any subsequent developments in the same proceedings.

Finally, this compilation does not capture CBIC circulars, CBDT instructions, or departmental clarifications that may affect how Section 74(1) is administered in practice. Researchers examining the limitation, penalty, or ITC dimensions of Section 74(1) should cross-reference the applicable CBIC circulars and, where relevant, any GST Council decisions or notifications that may have extended or modified statutory time periods applicable to the tax periods in question.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 74(1) GST Demand Orders: 12 High Court & Tribunal Rulings (2026)