TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner's replies and violated principles of natural justice by refusing cross-examination; (ii) Whether a consolidated Show Cause Notice / adjudication for multiple periods/financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act is permissible; (iii) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 exists and whether relief should be granted in writ jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority failed to consider the petitioner's replies and whether refusal of cross-examination vitiates the impugned order.
Analysis: The impugned order is a detailed adjudication recording hearings, replies filed on 19.12.2024 and 30.12.2024, and reasons for rejecting requests for cross-examination. The replies mostly raised technical objections and did not prima facie dispute the core investigative findings of absence of underlying supplies or provide substantive particulars of business transactions. Jurisprudence recognises that cross-examination in adjudicatory proceedings is not an unfettered right and is required only where denial would cause demonstrable prejudice. In the facts, the documents relied upon were recovered from the petitioner's premises and the petitioner had knowledge of relevant facts; no specific prejudice from denial of cross-examination was established.
Conclusion: The petitioner's replies were considered and the refusal to permit cross-examination does not vitiate the impugned order; this issue is decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether a consolidated SCN / order for multiple periods (financial years) under Section 74 is impermissible.
Analysis: Sections 73 and 74 use expressions such as "for any period" and "for such periods" and contemplate notices and statements covering periods beyond a single financial year; other provisions refer expressly to "financial year" where applicable. The statutory language and practical nature of ITC fraud investigations, which often require connecting transactions across years to establish fraudulent patterns, support issuance of consolidated notices/orders. Precedent of this Court has accepted consolidated notices in similar contexts.
Conclusion: A consolidated SCN and adjudication for multiple periods under the CGST Act is permissible; this issue is decided against the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternate statutory remedy under Section 107 exists and whether exceptional circumstances justify exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Analysis: The statutory scheme provides an effective appellate remedy under Section 107. Established principles limit exercise of writ jurisdiction where an efficacious alternate remedy exists unless exceptional circumstances (breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice with prejudice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires) are shown. The petitioner did not demonstrate such exceptional circumstances or substantial prejudice from procedural denials. The Court exercised discretion to decline writ relief but granted limited relief by extending time to file an appeal and permitting condonation of delay for limitation purposes.
Conclusion: The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy under Section 107 subject to the time extension granted.
Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order is not interfered with in writ jurisdiction; the petitioner is directed to file an appeal under Section 107 within the extended period and the writ petition is dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists, writ jurisdiction will not be ordinarily exercised in tax adjudications absent exceptional circumstances; consolidated notices covering multiple periods are permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, and denial of cross-examination vitiates an order only if the party demonstrates specific prejudice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
