The Madras High Court addressed a case involving M/s. Narasus Saarathy Enterprises Private Limited, which contested a GST demand exceeding ₹12.65 crore. The dispute centered on the classification of goods as "branded" or "unbranded," affecting the company's eligibility for tax exemption. The company, which manufactures wheat products, claimed exemptions for unbranded goods while paying taxes on branded ones, even relinquishing brand rights as per GST notifications. However, the GST department argued that the use of similar packaging elements suggested a brand connection, thus denying the exemption and invoking Section 74 due to alleged suppression.
The petitioner contended that they acted in good faith, disclosed all relevant facts, and that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued in 2024 was time-barred, improperly combining multiple years. The central issue was whether the extended limitation under Section 74 could be applied in cases of interpretational disputes when facts were already known.
Read More: Bombay High Court: GST authorities cannot seize cash under Section 67 without proper “reason to believe” and legal backing, making such seizure is illegal [Order attached]
The Court concluded that similar packaging or house marks alone do not establish suppression or intent to evade taxes. It emphasized that invoking extended limitation requires clear evidence of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression rather than mere interpretational differences. Additionally, the Court noted that the delay in issuing the SCN, despite prior inspections and disclosures, cast doubt on the applicability of Section 74. Concerns about clubbing multiple years and the limitation period were also examined, suggesting such actions could unfairly affect the taxpayer. The Court's decision highlights the need for clear evidence when applying extended limitations in tax disputes.
Order Date - 16 March 2026
Parties: M/s.Narasus Saarathy Enterprises Private Limited Vs The Additional Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Facts -
- M/s Saarathy Enterprises Private Limited approached the Madras High Court challenging a GST demand of over ₹12.65 crore for allegedly selling “branded goods” as “unbranded” to claim exemption.
- The company manufactured wheat products (Atta, Maida, etc.) and paid tax on branded goods but claimed exemption on unbranded packs, even giving up brand rights as per GST notification.
- The department alleged that similar packaging elements (logos, colors, graphics) created a brand connection, thus denying exemption and invoking Section 74 for suppression.
- The petitioner argued it acted under bona fide belief, disclosed all facts, and that the SCN issued in 2024 for earlier years was time-barred and wrongly clubbed multiple years.
Issue -
- Whether extended limitation under Section 74 can be invoked for alleged misclassification when facts were known and dispute is interpretational?
Order -
- The Court noted that mere use of similar packaging or house marks may not automatically prove suppression or intent to evade tax.
- It emphasized that extended limitation requires clear evidence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression, not just a difference in interpretation.
- The delay in issuing SCN despite earlier inspection and disclosures raised doubts about invoking Section 74.
- The Court also examined concerns regarding clubbing of multiple years and limitation, indicating such practices may prejudice the taxpayer.
