Section 74 notice challenge declined, but separate adjudication and hearing safeguards were directed for later financial years.

Interference with a Section 74 show cause notice was declined because the challenge to alleged premature haste and denial of cross-examination was considered speculative at that stage, particularly for the earliest year where limitation was close to expiry. However, where the notice covered multiple financial years, the court directed separate adjudication orders for the later years and required a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the competent authority. The court also noted that any legally required cross-examination could be raised at the appropriate stage in the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the show cause notice issued under Section 74, and whether directions were required for separate adjudication for different financial years and for grant of reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The notice under Section 74 proposed tax, penalty and interest for multiple years. The Court found that the apprehension of premature haste and denial of cross-examination was largely speculative at this stage, particularly for the earliest year where limitation was imminent. At the same time, taking note of the concern that a composite order might be passed for all years, the Court held that for the later years there was sufficient time and that separate determination orders should be passed, with reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Court also observed that any legally required cross-examination could be raised at the appropriate stage before the competent authority.

Conclusion: Interference with the notice was declined, but the petitioner was granted protection by way of an opportunity of hearing and separate orders for the years from 2018-2019 onwards.

---