GST Vidhi | GST Case Law


M/s Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Allahabad High Court)

M/s Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Others

(By Adv. (CS) Yogesh Verma)

Brief Background of the Case

M/s Raghuvansh Agro Farms Ltd., a registered GST assessee engaged in the business of supply of agricultural goods and areca nuts, was subjected to a survey by the GST authorities on 22 January 2019. Based on the survey, a show cause notice under Section 74 of the UPGST Act was issued alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and circular trading.

Despite submission of detailed replies along with documentary evidence such as tax invoices, e-way bills, bilties, bank statements, and GST returns, the adjudicating authority passed an order confirming tax, interest, and penalty. The appeal filed by the assessee was also dismissed, leading to the filing of the present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.

·       Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

·       Bench: Hon’ble Justice Piyush Agrawal

·       Writ Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 3829 of 2025

·       Date of Judgment: Reserved on: 10 September 2025
Delivered on: 17 December 2025

Key Issues Before the High Court

The High Court was primarily called upon to decide the following issues:

1.    Whether proceedings under Section 74 can be initiated in the absence of specific allegations and findings of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

2.    Whether State GST authorities could initiate proceedings against a taxpayer falling under Central GST jurisdiction in the absence of any cross-empowerment notification.

3.    Whether ITC can be denied merely on allegations of circular trading despite availability of invoices, e-way bills, banking transactions, and GST returns.

4.    Whether adverse inference can be drawn for non-production of toll plaza receipts, when such requirement is not prescribed under the GST law.

Submissions of the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that:

  • Proceedings under Section 74 were initiated mechanically without mentioning any ingredient of fraud or intent to evade tax.
  • All purchases and sales were supported by valid tax invoices, e-way bills, bilties, and payments through banking channels.
  • Transactions were duly reflected in GSTR-1, GSTR-2A, and GSTR-3B.
  • The allegation of circular trading was baseless and unsupported by evidence.
  • The State GST authorities lacked jurisdiction, as the petitioner was under Central GST jurisdiction and no cross-empowerment notification existed except for refund matters under Section 54.
  • Denial of ITC on the ground of non-submission of toll receipts was arbitrary, as GST law does not mandate such documents.

Submissions of the Revenue

The State contended that:

  • The petitioner was involved in circular trading without actual movement of goods.
  • Non-production of toll plaza receipts cast doubt on physical movement of goods.
  • Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. Ltd.

 

Findings and Observations of the High Court

1. Section 74 Can Be Invoked Only When Fraud Is Alleged and Established

The Court emphatically held that Section 74 is a special provision which can be invoked only when tax has been short paid or ITC wrongly availed by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.

The Court observed that neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order recorded any clear finding or evidence of fraud. In absence of these foundational requirements, the entire proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction Cannot Be Assumed Without Cross-Empowerment

The Court noted that the petitioner fell under Central GST jurisdiction, and no material was placed on record by the State to justify how State authorities acquired jurisdiction.

In absence of any recommendation of the GST Council or valid notification for cross-empowerment (except limited to refunds), the proceedings initiated by State GST authorities were held to be invalid.

3. Genuine Transactions Cannot Be Disbelieved Without Evidence

The Court found that:

  • All transactions were reflected in statutory returns.
  • Payments were made through banking channels.
  • E-way bills, invoices, and transport documents were available.

Merely branding transactions as “circular trading” without rebutting documentary evidence was held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.

4. Toll Plaza Receipts Are Not Mandatory Under GST Law

The Court categorically rejected the revenue’s insistence on toll plaza receipts. It held that:

  • There is no provision under the GST Act or Rules mandating production of toll receipts.
  • Once e-way bills, invoices, bilties, and transporter payments are available, adverse inference cannot be drawn.

Such findings of the authorities were termed perverse and without legal basis.

5. Proceedings Against Supplier Dropped – No Adverse Inference Against Buyer

The Court also noted that proceedings against one of the suppliers (M/s Sibri Traders) had already been set aside by CGST authorities. Once the supplier itself was exonerated, no adverse inference could survive against the petitioner.

Reliance on Earlier Judgments

The High Court relied upon and reiterated principles laid down in:

  • HCL Infotech Ltd.
  • M/s Ajnara Realtech Ltd.
  • M/s Vadilal Enterprises Ltd.
  • Safecon Lifescience Pvt. Ltd.
  • Khurja Scrap Trading Company

It also referred to the CBIC Circular dated 13.12.2023, clarifying that Section 74 cannot be invoked in absence of fraud.

Final Decision

The Allahabad High Court held that:

  • Initiation of proceedings under Section 74 was illegal and without jurisdiction.
  • Orders passed by the adjudicating authority and appellate authority were unsustainable.
  • Entire proceedings were quashed.

The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed that any amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded within one month from production of a certified copy of the order.

 Disclaimer: All the Information is based on the notification, circular advisory and order issued by the Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.

Press On Click Here To Download Order File



Click here

Comments


Post your comment here