Show Cause Notice Under Section 73 CGST Held Valid; Petition Dismissed, Appeal Allowed with Pre-Deposit by August 31

The HC held that the impugned show cause notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act was within the prescribed limitation period, being dated 30th November 2024, which is at least three months prior to the order dated 28th February 2025. The Court found that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply and participate in personal hearings, with only one adjournment granted as per the statutory limit. The petition challenging the SCN and order was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the Petitioner was allowed to file an appeal against the order by 31st August 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and the appeal was to be decided on merits without limitation objections.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act)?Whether adequate opportunity, including personal hearing, was afforded to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CGST Act'Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of statutory remedies under the CGST Act?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On limitation: The Court held that the impugned SCN dated 30th November, 2024, was issued within the prescribed limitation period under Section 73(2) read with Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, interpreting "three months" as "three calendar months" as per the definition in the General Clauses Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers. Therefore, the SCN and consequent order are "neither time barred nor issued without jurisdiction".On opportunity for personal hearing: The Court found that adequate opportunity was granted to the petitioner for filing replies and for personal hearings, including an adjournment granted upon request. The petitioner failed to attend the scheduled personal hearing without seeking further adjournment. The Court held that the proviso to Section 75(5) CGST Act limits the maximum number of adjournments to three but does not mandate a minimum number, and that the right to personal hearing was not curtailed.On maintainability of writ petition: The Court ruled that since the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable except under exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, none of which were established. The petitioner was directed to avail the statutory appellate remedy.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of Section 73 of the CGST Act, which mandates issuance of a show cause notice at least three months prior to the expiry of the three-year limitation period for passing an adjudication order. The Court relied on Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act and interpreted the term "three months" as calendar months in accordance with Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers.The Court distinguished the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Cotton Corporation of India, holding that the limitation period must be strictly construed but that the issuance of the SCN on 30th November, 2024, was within the limitation period when calendar months are considered.Regarding opportunity for hearing, the Court emphasized the statutory scheme under Section 75(4) and (5) of the CGST Act, clarifying that adjournments are discretionary and conditional upon sufficient cause, with a maximum cap of three adjournments but no minimum entitlement to multiple adjournments. The Court found that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and failed to avail the personal hearing without adequate cause.On the writ petition's maintainability, the Court applied settled principles that writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable when adequate alternative statutory remedies exist, except in exceptional circumstances such as breach of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice. The Court cited authoritative precedent holding that appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is a full-fledged remedy capable of correcting errors of the adjudicating authority, including re-examination of facts and law.No dissent or doctrinal shift was noted; the Court followed established statutory interpretation and precedent.

---