This compilation indexes twelve High Court rulings decided between October 2025 and August 2026 that engage Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The cases span the Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Madras, and Punjab-Haryana High Courts and address a range of procedural and substantive questions arising from the DRC-01A intimation mechanism, show cause notices, adjudication orders, and related enforcement actions. The compilation is intended for use by in-house GST teams, Big-4 indirect-tax associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, court-and-date-indexed reference point before retrieving full judgments.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or an opinion on how any provision should be applied to a specific set of facts. Readers should retrieve and read the full judgment before relying on any ruling, and should verify whether any order has been stayed, reversed, or further appealed.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides that where a person chargeable with tax has, before service of a notice under Section 74(1), paid the tax along with interest under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to fifteen per cent of such tax, all proceedings in respect of the said notice shall be deemed to be concluded. The provision is part of a broader scheme under Section 74 which deals with the determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. The intimation of tax liability in Form DRC-01A, issued as a precursor to a formal show cause notice, is the procedural instrument through which the tax authority communicates the ascertained liability prior to the issuance of a notice under Section 74(1), and Section 74(5) creates the pre-notice settlement window that DRC-01A is designed to facilitate.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S Supra Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner Circle 6

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 31 August 2026
Sections engaged: 107, 65(6), 74(1), 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(C) 11352/2024) was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging an impugned adjudication order (Original No. 62/AY/AC/NP/2024-25 dated 03.02.2025) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Div-Nehru Place, Delhi East Commissionerate. The court noted at the outset that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and that the appellate authority is vested with wide powers to examine both questions of fact and law, re-appreciate the material on record, and determine the legality and correctness of the order under challenge. The source preview indicates the court was considering the adequacy and efficacy of the statutory appellate remedy as a threshold issue in the writ proceedings.

2. 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 the deceased Irshadahmed Chaudhary, seeking a writ of mandamus or similar relief against the State of Gujarat. The source preview indicates the petitioner prayed for specific directions from the court, with the matter involving Sections 74(1) and 74(5) of the CGST Act. The full substantive ground is not disclosed in the available preview; the petition was filed against the respondent State as per the source preview.

3. Bhimsen Bilas Singh vs Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 17 July 2026
Sections engaged: 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 202259 of 2026) was filed before the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court by the proprietor of M/s Suparna Electricals, Kalaburagi, seeking a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash a rectification of mistake order (ROM 01...) issued by the respondents, which included the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (CGST) and Central Excise, Kalaburagi Division. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and the challenge was directed at the rectification order as per the source preview; the substantive merits are not further disclosed in the available text.

4. Date Of Decision: 07.05.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Bench: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date: 7 May 2026
Sections engaged: 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CWP No. 3858 of 2024) was filed by M/s Saraswati Spinning and Weaving Mills before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. As per the source preview, after issuance of an intimation of liability notice in Form DRC-01A dated 10.10.2023 for Financial Year 2021-2022, and a further DRC-01A (undated) followed by a show cause notice dated 12.01.2024 for Financial Year 2022-2023, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply along with documents claiming entitlement to the benefit of Input Tax Credit; however, the source preview indicates the reply was not considered before further action was taken.

5. Lijo V. J vs State Of Kerala

Bench: Kerala High Court
Date: 27 March 2026
Sections engaged: 74(5), 67, 107
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C) No. 42180 of 2025) was filed by the petitioner before the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam and was finally heard and decided on 27.03.2026. The petitioner was aggrieved by an order (Ext. P16) passed by the third respondent (an Intelligence Officer of the SGST Department), by which the request made by the petitioner was dealt with; the source preview references an earlier interim order dated 25.11.2025 and a demand draft letter dated 08.12.2025 as exhibits. The specific substantive ground beyond the procedural posture is not fully disclosed in the available source preview.

6. The Assistant Commissioner (Hpu) vs M/S. B. G. Granites

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 12 March 2026
Sections engaged: 74(5), 74(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This matter came before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru as a Writ Appeal (WA No. 2126 of 2025) filed by the Assistant Commissioner (HPU), CGST Commissionerate, Mysore, seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 26885/2024 (T-RES) dated 13.10.2025. The appeal was filed against M/s KUM Internationals, a partnership firm with GSTIN 29AAIFK8226C1ZA, registered in Chamarajanagara, Karnataka. The source preview indicates the respondent before the Division Bench was the entity that had succeeded before the Single Judge; the substantive reasoning of the Division Bench is not further disclosed in the available preview.

7. Bharathidasan University vs The Joint Commissioner Of GST

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 10 February 2026
Sections engaged: 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: A batch of writ petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos. 27453, 27456 to 27458 of 2025) was filed by Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, reserved on 02.02.2026 and pronounced on 10.02.2026. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned notice issued by the first respondent dated 16.07.2025 in Form GST DRC 01 for the periods 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023, and to declare that affiliation fees and other related educational receipts collected by the petitioner are exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-CTR read with Articles 243G and 243W of the Constitution, and not taxable by virtue of CBIC Circular No. 234/28/2024/GST.

8. M/S. Agrawal Enterprises vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 16 January 2026
Sections engaged: 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (R/Special Civil Application No. 386 of 2026) was filed by M/s Agrawal Enterprises, a partnership firm with GST No. GSTN24ABNFA2763L1Z6, before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad. As per the source preview, the petition challenged the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by respondent No. 2, which had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay; the demand order had been issued against the petitioner by respondent No. 3. The court issued Rule returnable forthwith and the learned AGP waived notice of Rule, indicating the matter was taken up urgently.

9. M/S Ekta Enterprises vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr

Bench: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date: 2 January 2026
Sections engaged: 74(1), 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner (CWP No. 21193/2025, decided on 2.1.2026) approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court aggrieved by a composite intimation of tax liability communicated for financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24 vide communication dated 20.6.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued in Form DRC-01A under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, as well as by a show cause notice dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) in Form DRC-01 under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, the grievance being that the show cause notice was issued without considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the DRC-01A intimation. The petitioner also raised a contention regarding the definition of "tax period" under the CGST Act and the basis on which the composite multi-year intimation was issued.

10. M/S Bsln Ispat vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 21 November 2025
Sections engaged: 74(5), 78
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP No. 19015 of 2025) was filed before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru by M/s BSLN Ispat, a sole proprietary concern represented by the legal heir of the deceased proprietor, seeking to quash the impugned adjudication order (No. ACCT/LGSTO-183/BOGUSITC/DRC07-2/T-9443/24-25, RFN No. MA290225020808U dated 05.02.2025, Annexure H1) and the impugned summary order (ZD2902250205889 dated 05.02.2025, Annexure H2) issued by the first respondent under Section 74 of the GST Act on the ground of, inter alia, bogus ITC. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and came up for oral orders before the court.

11. Vishal vs State Of Haryana And Others

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 31 October 2025
Sections engaged: 11, 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CRM-M No. 41128 of 2022) was reserved on 04.09.2025 and pronounced on 31.10.2025 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 475 dated 20.10.2020 registered at Police Station Gohana City, District Sonepat, by invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The source preview states the FIR was lodged for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 11 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (a pre-GST statute) and under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC; the FIR arose from a written complaint submitted by the Office of the Excise and Taxation Officer dated 13.02.2000, and the petitioner contended that he was in possession of all requisite documents in respect of the purchases in question. Note: based on the source preview, the Section 11 cited in this matter is a provision of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and not the CGST Act, 2017; the appearance of "74(5)" in the sections list as indexed by the source corpus is recorded here verbatim, but readers should consult the full judgment to confirm the precise statutory provisions engaged.

12. Dipanshu Anand vs Principal Commissioner, Central GST

Bench: Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date: 27 October 2025
Sections engaged: 132(1)(c), 74(5)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CRM-M-44890-2025) was decided on 27.10.2025 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The prayer was for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of complaint No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/570/2025-AE filed before the Office of the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Ludhiana. The source preview states the complaint was filed under Sections 132(1)(c&l) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017; as per the source preview, during investigation by DGGI, Regional Unit, Amritsar, it was revealed that M/s Gauri Shankar Metal Industries (a partnership concern of the petitioner) and M/s Shivansh Enterprises (a sole proprietary concern of the petitioner) were alleged to have been engaged in availment of fraudulent Input Tax Credit. Researchers should note that the source preview references additional sub-clauses of Section 132 beyond those captured in the indexed sections field, and should consult the full judgment for the complete list of provisions engaged.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

DRC-01A reply not considered before issuance of DRC-01. At least two rulings in this set (cases 4 and 9) reflect a recurring grievance in which taxpayers allege that a formal show cause notice in Form DRC-01 was issued without the adjudicating authority having considered the reply submitted by the taxpayer to the prior DRC-01A intimation, raising questions about the integrity of the pre-notice settlement process under the CGST Act.
Availability of the statutory appellate remedy as a threshold issue. The Delhi High Court ruling (case 1) explicitly noted at the outset that the impugned adjudication order was appealable under Section 107 and that the appellate authority possesses wide powers to examine facts and law. This reflects a recurring pattern across GST High Court litigation where courts scrutinise whether the writ petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedy before entertaining constitutional jurisdiction.
Composite multi-year intimations challenged. Case 9 involves a composite DRC-01A covering financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24 in a single communication, with the petitioner raising a specific contention regarding the definition of "tax period" under the CGST Act. This reflects a wider pattern of taxpayers challenging the aggregation of multiple financial years in a single intimation or notice.
Enforcement and criminal proceedings alongside Section 74 proceedings. Cases 11 and 12 demonstrate that the section 74(5) tag can appear in proceedings that are primarily criminal or quasi-criminal in nature — one involving an FIR quashing petition (where the FIR itself arose under a pre-GST statute as per the source preview) and another a bail application under the CGST Act — illustrating the range of enforcement contexts in which the provision appears in indexed litigation.
Writ challenges to rectification and adjudication orders. Cases 3 and 10 involve writ petitions directed specifically at a rectification-of-mistake order and adjudication orders respectively, illustrating that the writ jurisdiction of High Courts continues to be invoked at multiple stages of the Section 74 enforcement chain, not only at the notice stage.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is arranged in reverse chronological order by date of decision and is intended as a starting point for structured legal research. Researchers should use the case name, bench, and date fields to locate the full judgment on the official court portal (e.g., indiankanoon.org, mhc.tn.gov.in/judis, or the respective High Court's official website) before drawing any conclusions about the ratio or outcome of a ruling. The source previews reproduced here are limited extracts from the opening portions of judgments and do not capture the full reasoning, operative order, or any subsequent developments.

Before placing reliance on any ruling listed in this index, researchers should verify: (a) whether the order has been stayed, set aside, or modified by a superior court; (b) whether a Letters Patent Appeal, Special Leave Petition, or review petition has been filed or decided; and (c) whether any relevant CBIC circular, notification, or board instruction issued after the date of judgment alters the applicable legal position. GST law in India has seen frequent legislative and administrative amendments since the CGST Act came into force in 2017, and the interpretation of provisions such as Section 74(5) continues to evolve across jurisdictions.

Researchers working on matters involving the DRC-01A / DRC-01 process should also cross-reference parallel CBIC instructions on the pre-show-cause-notice consultation process, any relevant GSTAT orders on the same provisions, and the developing body of Appellate Authority for Advance Rulings (AAAR) and Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) decisions. The patterns identified in this compilation are observational and descriptive only, and should not be treated as settled propositions of law.

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(5) CGST: 12 High Court Rulings on DRC-01A Intimations (2025–2026)