Friends, Orders under section 74 were issued in the first week of February. In some instances, your detailed replies may have been ignored, resulting in decisions made without consideration of your replies. You can appeal against these orders. Here are a few cases that may be helpful to you. Please save the post. Thoughts, Insight and Research by: Abhishek Raja Ram, 9810638155 1. Adjudicating authority is bound to consider reply to show-cause notice and record reasons as to why reply is not satisfactory; mere rejection of reply by a single line is not sustainable. Calcutta High Court in Haripa India (2024) 90 GSTL 263 I hope you've found this write up helpful. Request you to Follow me @abhishekrajaram for more valuable updates and case studies. Like/Retweet the first tweet below if you can: 2. Where show-cause notice issued under section 74(1) was a mere replica of intimation given earlier and did not deal with contentions raised by assessee in their reply to intimation, authority should consider reply to intimation and deal with issues raised therein before issuing show-cause notice. Calcutta High Court in Jyoti Tar Products Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 170 Taxmann Com 679 3. Where assessee/petitioner contended that detailed reply with documents was ignored by proper officer, High Court set aside cryptic order and remitted matter for readjudication, allowing further reply and fresh consideration. Delhi High Court in Sethia Enterprises (2024) 163 Taxmann Com 381 4. Where show cause notice proposing demand of tax was issued by respondent-department and a detailed reply was submitted by petitioner-assessee to said show cause notice, but, impugned assessment order was passed without taking into consideration said reply, therefore, matter was to be readjudicated. Delhi High Court in Wellness Marketing Exi Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 163 Taxmann Com 56 5. Where in replies to show cause notices, assessee had provided detailed explanations and reconciliations in respect of difference in turnover between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1, but without considering same, demands were confirmed, matter was to be readjudicated. Madras High Court in J.P. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 167 Taxmann Com 101 I hope these cases will be helpful to you. Thanks Abhishek Raja Ram