Most businesses that received a GST notice this year replied to the wrong section.
For every financial year up to 2023-24, a demand came under Section 73 if the department alleged an honest error, and under Section 74 if it alleged fraud or suppression. The difference mattered enormously. Section 73 carried a ten percent penalty. Section 74 carried one hundred percent.
From FY 2024-25 onwards, both are gone. Section 74A replaced them.
That single change resets the limitation clock, resets the penalty arithmetic, and resets the first question your counsel should ask when the notice lands. Most replies being filed today are still drafted against a framework that no longer applies to the year in dispute.
Here is what actually changed, and what to check on your notice before you draft a word of reply.
The Legislative Origin
Section 74A was inserted into the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by Section 118 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which received Presidential assent on 16 August 2024. It applies to all tax periods commencing from FY 2024-25 onwards. For tax periods up to and including FY 2023-24, the old machinery of Section 73 (non-fraud) and Section 74 (fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression) continues to operate. This transitional cut-off is the first thing to verify on any notice: if the year under demand is FY 2023-24 or earlier, Section 74A does not apply at all.
What the Old Framework Did
Under the old framework, the department had to make a threshold classification at the point of issuing the show cause notice. Was the short-payment or non-payment attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, or was it not? That classification determined which section applied, which limitation period governed, and what penalty the taxpayer faced.
Section 73 governed non-fraud cases. The show cause notice had to be issued within two years (later extended to three years for some periods) from the due date for filing the annual return. The penalty was ten percent of the tax due, or ten thousand rupees, whichever was higher. Interest was payable under Section 50 from the date the tax was due to the date of payment.
Section 74 governed fraud and suppression cases. The limitation period was five years. The penalty was one hundred percent of the tax due. Interest was the same, though for a longer period because the limitation was longer. Crucially, if the department invoked Section 74 but could not establish fraud or suppression, the entire proceedings could be challenged on the ground that the wrong section had been invoked, and courts did set aside such proceedings.
What Section 74A Changed
Section 74A merges the two tracks into a single procedural channel. Every demand for FY 2024-25 onwards is now issued under Section 74A, regardless of whether fraud or suppression is alleged. The department no longer makes an upfront classification that determines the section; instead, the section itself contains the machinery for both scenarios.
The architecture works as follows. The show cause notice is issued under Section 74A. If fraud or suppression is not alleged, the limitation period is 42 months from the due date for filing the annual return for the relevant financial year. If fraud or suppression is alleged, the limitation period is 60 months from the same date. The penalty exposure depends on whether the final order establishes fraud or suppression: ten percent (or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher) if it does not, one hundred percent if it does.
The practical consequence is significant. Under the old regime, the invocation of the wrong section was a jurisdictional defect that could vitiate the entire proceedings. Under 74A, there is no wrong section to invoke. The single section accommodates both outcomes, and the question of fraud or suppression is resolved at the adjudication stage rather than at the notice stage. This eliminates one of the most common grounds on which SCN proceedings were challenged under the old framework.
The Limitation Arithmetic
For non-fraud demands under Section 74A, the limitation is 42 months from the due date for filing the annual return of the relevant financial year. For FY 2024-25, the annual return (GSTR-9) is due on 31 December 2025, making the outer limitation date approximately June 2029. For fraud or suppression demands, the limitation is 60 months, extending the window to approximately December 2030 for the same period.
This is a change from the old regime where Section 73 provided a three-year window and Section 74 provided a five-year window. The 42-month and 60-month periods under Section 74A are measured from the annual return due date, not from the date of filing or the date of the short-payment, which gives the department a slightly different calculation base.
Penalty Exposure: The Graduated Architecture
Section 74A introduces a graduated penalty architecture within a single section. If the adjudicating authority determines that the short-payment or non-payment was not attributable to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, the penalty is ten percent of the tax due or ten thousand rupees, whichever is higher. If fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression is established, the penalty is one hundred percent.
There is also a pre-notice settlement mechanism. If a taxpayer pays the full amount of tax along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice, no penalty is payable. If payment is made within sixty days of issuance of the show cause notice (or thirty days in the case of a statement of demand), a reduced penalty of fifteen percent applies where no fraud is established. These settlement windows create a commercial decision point that must be evaluated against the merits of the case before the notice is responded to.
What To Check on Your Notice
When a notice under Section 74A arrives, the first task is triage, not drafting. Verify the financial year. If it is FY 2023-24 or earlier, the notice should cite Section 73 or 74, not 74A, and a notice under the wrong provision for the wrong year is a jurisdictional defect. Verify whether fraud or suppression is alleged, because this determines whether the fifteen percent settlement route is commercially sensible. Verify the limitation date, because a notice issued beyond 42 months (non-fraud) or 60 months (fraud) from the annual return due date is time-barred.
Only after these three checks should the grounds of reply be drafted. The substantive reply must address the demand on merits, the interest computation, and the penalty exposure, but none of that matters if the notice is jurisdictionally defective on its face.
The Strategic Implication
Section 74A does not change the substantive tax liability of any taxpayer. What it changes is the procedural landscape in which demands are raised, defended, and settled. The elimination of the two-section framework removes one category of jurisdictional challenge that taxpayers previously relied on. In return, the unified section creates clearer limitation periods and a more transparent penalty graduation. The net effect is that the quality of the substantive reply matters more than it did before, because there are fewer procedural grounds on which to challenge the notice without engaging with the merits.
For businesses receiving GST demands for FY 2024-25 onwards, the response framework must be recalibrated. Counsel that drafts a reply citing Section 73 or 74 for a year governed by Section 74A is drafting against a statute that no longer applies. That error, replicated across thousands of replies being filed today, is the single most common currency gap in Indian indirect tax practice.
Internal links: GST & Indirect Tax Practice | GST Litigation