M/S Salsan Steel PVT LTD Ram Nagar, Industrial Area, Gagret, Una, H.P T vs. The State Of Hp And Others
Held
The Court held that the show cause notice dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) did not fulfill the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Tata Steel Limited vs. Union of India. The notice was considered cryptic and failed to establish that the petitioner's alleged actions were on account of fraud, willful-misrepresentation, or suppression of facts. Therefore, the Court quashed the show cause notice and the impugned order dated 25.03.2026. The Court granted liberty to the assessing authority to proceed afresh by issuing a fresh show-cause notice under Section 74 of the HPGST Act if advised. As agreed, if a fresh notice is issued within 60 days, it will be deemed within limitation and the petitioner will respond on merits. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Salsan Steel Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) and an impugned order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-4). The respondents were the State of H.P. and other authorities. The proceedings were initiated under Section 74 of the HPGST Act. The petition was disposed of by a consent order. The court noted that Section 74 requires non-payment or short payment of tax, or wrong availment of ITC, to be by reason of fraud, willful-misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax.
Key Issues
1. Whether the show cause notice dated 12.09.2024 issued under Section 74 of the HPGST Act is legally sustainable, considering the pre-conditions for its issuance? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was cryptic and did not establish that the alleged non-compliance was due to fraud, willful-misrepresentation, or suppression of facts, as mandated by Section 74 of the HPGST Act and as interpreted by the Supreme Court in M/s Tata Steel Limited vs. Union of India. The notice merely recited the words of Section 74 without substantiating the foundational facts. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side regarding the validity of the show cause notice. However, the fact that they agreed to a consent order suggests an acknowledgment of the issues raised by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:HHC:40155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No. 6066 of 2029 Decided on : 21.09.2026 M/s Salsan Steel Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors
…Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bedi & Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocates For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General along with Mr. Sushant Keprate and Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocates General, for respondents No.1,3 & 4- State. Mr. Prashant Manhas, Advocate vice Mr. Shiv Pal Manhas, Senior Penal Counsel, for respondent No.2 Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
(Oral
)
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of by passing the following consent order.
Section 74 of the HPGST Act, inter alia, provides that where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:40155 paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input t
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.