This compilation indexes 12 writ petitions decided by various Indian High Courts between September 2025 and August 2026 in which taxpayers challenged assessment orders passed under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and/or the corresponding State GST Acts). The rulings span the Orissa, Gauhati, Bombay, Madras, Telangana, and Karnataka High Courts and cover a range of procedural and substantive grounds raised before these courts. The compilation is intended for use by in-house GST teams, Big-4 indirect-tax associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured entry point into this body of litigation before consulting full judgments.

Disclaimer: This page is a structured research index drawn from publicly available court records. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must verify all entries against the full text of the relevant judgment and check for subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals before placing reliance on any ruling listed here.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides that where a show cause notice has been issued to a person under Section 74(1) on the ground that tax has been short-paid, not paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and that person does not make payment of the tax, interest, and penalty as stipulated within the prescribed timelines, the proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the said person, determine the amount of tax, interest, and penalty due from that person and issue an order. The resulting order, commonly issued in Form GST DRC-07, is the adjudication outcome under this provision, and it is the primary instrument challenged in the writ petitions indexed below. The parallel provision for cases not involving fraud or wilful misstatement is Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S Rajlaxmi vs Union Of India And Others

Bench: Orissa High Court
Date: 14 August 2026
Sections engaged: 161, 6(2), 73, 74(1), 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 bearing Reference No. ZD2105240238281 dated 28.05.2024 issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017, along with the consequent Order-in-Original passed under Section 74(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the CGST/OGST Rules, 2017, vide an Assessment Order dated 16.03.2026. The writ petition (W.P.(C) No.17210 of 2026) was filed before the Orissa High Court at Cuttack; based on the source preview, the substantive determination of the court is not available in the indexed extract.

2. M/S Rajkonwar And Sons And Anr vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors

Bench: Gauhati High Court
Date: 11 August 2026
Sections engaged: 107, 50, 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WP(C)/4367/2022, citation 2026:GAU-AS:11511) was filed by a proprietorship firm based in Dibrugarh, Assam, against the Union of India and six other respondents including GST and Central Excise authorities and the Public Works Department of Assam. Per the source preview, the petition involves proceedings connected to Section 74(9); the substantive determination and relief granted by the Gauhati High Court are not available in the indexed extract.

3. Maha Vartta Media Solutions Private vs The State Of Maharashtra

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 21 July 2026
Sections engaged: 74(9), 20
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2820 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India primarily assailing the rejection of its appeal filed on 11th February 2026 before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax — Nodal Division 09, Mumbai, by a decision dated 6th May 2026 in Form GST APL-02. The background involved a show cause notice dated 8th October 2024 issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why a tax liability of Rs. 4,35,958/- being inadmissible input tax credit and interest should not be recovered; the Bombay High Court issued Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties per the source preview.

4. Evergreen Recyclekaro (India) Limited vs Principal Commissioner Of State Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 24 June 2026
Sections engaged: 74(9), 107
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of cobalt sulphate, manganese sulphate, and nickel sulphate solutions, filed Writ Petition No. 12067 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing a Show Cause Notice along with DRC-01 both dated 18th October 2024 and the resultant Order dated 20th December 2024 issued along with DRC-07 in relation to FY 2020-2021. The Bombay High Court issued Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties; the substantive determination is not available in the indexed extract per the source preview.

5. Seventh Day Adventist Educational vs State Tax Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 10 April 2026
Sections engaged: 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed a batch of writ petitions (including WP No. 14017 of 2026) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to call for and quash an Assessment Order dated 03.12.2025 passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-07, along with the connected summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.12.2025 (Reference No. ZD331225042489D) for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020. The grounds raised in the prayer included that the impugned order was illegal, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the provisions of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017.

6. Mr. Bharat Kumar Agarwal vs Joint Commissioner (Ae)

Bench: Telangana High Court
Date: 8 April 2026
Sections engaged: 74(9), 122(1)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 9166 and 9354 of 2026) were disposed of by a common order; the petitioners were a company (M/s. Sugna Metal Limited) and its Managing Director who had received a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 27.06.2025, which led to an impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.12.2025 and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 31.12.2025. The proceedings were heard before the Telangana High Court; based on the source preview, the final substantive determination of the court is not available in the indexed extract.

7. M/S.Ramasamy Gounder Prakasam vs The Joint Commissioner

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 5 February 2026
Sections engaged: 122(2)(b), 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19259 of 2023 (along with W.M.P.Nos. 18503 & 18504 of 2023) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash Order-in-Original SI No.03/2023 GST (JC) dated 28.03.2023 (DIN: 20230359XP000000A1A7) on the ground that it was in gross violation of principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, was arbitrary, perverse, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The order was disposed of by the Madras High Court on 5 February 2026; the substantive direction is not available in the indexed extract.

8. M/S. Trinity Beverages Private Limited vs The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 17 December 2025
Sections engaged: 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 38005 of 2025 (T-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash an Order-in-Original dated 01.04.2021 passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act by the Respondent No. 2 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2020. The appeal was heard before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; the substantive determination is not available in the indexed extract per the source preview.

9. M/S Attica Gold Private Limited vs The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 17 December 2025
Sections engaged: 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, M/S Attica Gold Private Limited, a company with multiple registered locations across Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, filed Writ Petition No. 12903 of 2025 (T-RES) before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru. The petition was directed against proceedings involving Section 74(9); based on the source preview, which is largely confined to the cause title and party details, the substantive grounds and the court's determination are not available in the indexed extract.

10. Sri Karimangala Muniswamy Sreerama vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 10 December 2025
Sections engaged: 74(9), 75
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, a proprietor of M/s. K.M.Sreerama Civil Works (a contractor), filed Writ Petition No. 37287 of 2025 (T-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the second respondent and consequentially quash the order of cancellation of GST registration (bearing No. CTO/VIGILANCE-36/INS/2024-25/4642 dated 4.2.2025) and restore the GST registration. The Karnataka High Court proceeded to make an order on 10 December 2025; the substantive direction is not available in the indexed extract per the source preview.

11. Paul Rajan Punithan vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 8 October 2025
Sections engaged: 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P(MD) No. 23865 of 2025 (along with W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 18742 & 18743 of 2025) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking to call for and quash impugned orders under Section 74(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Acts, 2017 bearing Reference No. ZD330625024463M dated 03-06-2025 and Form GST DRC-07 Summary of the Order dated 03-06-2025 under GSTIN No. 33AHDPPO179R1ZV/2020-21 passed by the first respondent. The petition further sought a direction to the first respondent to pass orders afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing, raising grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.

12. M/S. Kandan Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 16 September 2025
Sections engaged: 73(9), 73(10), 74(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P. No. 34442 of 2025 (along with W.M.P.Nos. 38590 & 38591 of 2025) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 in Order-in-Original No. 342/2024-GST (AC) for the period of 2020-2021 issued by the respondent, on the grounds that it was illegal and arbitrary. When the matter was called, there was no appearance for the petitioner either in the morning or in the post-session; the source preview records that the matter was passed over accordingly, and the court's final direction in these circumstances is not available in the indexed extract.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Writ jurisdiction as the primary challenge route. All 12 cases reached High Courts via writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (and in some instances Article 227 also). The consistent resort to constitutional writ jurisdiction to challenge Section 74(9) orders — rather than or alongside the statutory appeal mechanism — is a structurally recurring feature across these proceedings.
Form GST DRC-07 as the primary target instrument. Several petitions explicitly identified the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 as the impugned document alongside the Order-in-Original itself (see, e.g., cases 5, 8, and 11). This indicates that in practice, both the substantive order and its summarised form are routinely challenged together in writ proceedings.
Natural justice and opportunity of hearing as recurring grounds. Multiple petitions (including cases 7 and 11, per the source previews) explicitly raised grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and absence of an adequate opportunity of personal hearing as bases for challenging Section 74(9) orders. This is a structurally consistent pleading pattern across the compilation.
Multi-year and multi-period tax demands. Where the tax period is identifiable from the source previews, the assessment orders covered extended periods — for example, July 2017 to March 2020 in case 8, FY 2020-2021 in cases 4 and 12, and April 2019 to March 2020 in case 5 — indicating that Section 74(9) litigation frequently involves multi-year demand disputes rather than single-period assessments.
Geographic spread across multiple High Courts. The 12 rulings span six High Courts — Orissa, Gauhati, Bombay, Madras (including the Madurai Bench), Telangana, and Karnataka — indicating that Section 74(9) writ litigation is not concentrated in any single jurisdiction and that divergent procedural approaches may exist across circuits. Researchers should check for High Court-specific procedural rules and any applicable division bench referrals in each jurisdiction.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is intended as a structured entry point for locating and retrieving High Court decisions involving Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017. Because all 12 source previews are confined to the cause title, prayer clauses, and opening procedural paragraphs of the respective orders, the dispositive directions of the courts are not available within this index. Researchers must retrieve the full text of each judgment from indiankanoon.org, the respective High Court's official portal, or a subscribed legal database before drawing any conclusion about the legal position adopted in a given ruling. Neutral citations (where visible in the previews, such as 2025:KHC:54578 and 2025:KHC:54354 for cases 8 and 9) can be used as search identifiers on official court portals.

Before placing reliance on any ruling in this index, researchers should verify whether the order has been stayed, reversed, or modified in subsequent proceedings. Writ orders at the admission or rule-issuance stage — a common posture in these petitions — do not represent a final adjudication on the merits. Additionally, where the challenge involves an interplay with the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 107 of the CGST Act (as in cases 2 and 4), researchers should examine whether the court addressed the maintainability of the writ in light of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Finally, this compilation covers judicial decisions only. Researchers dealing with Section 74(9) issues in practice should separately review applicable CBIC circulars, instructions, and clarifications issued from time to time on the administration of adjudication proceedings under Sections 73 and 74, as these may bear directly on the procedural validity grounds raised in the litigation indexed here. CBDT instructions are not relevant to this GST-specific compilation.

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(9) GST Orders: 12 High Court Writ Petition Rulings (2025–2026)