Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the consolidated show cause notice and the consequential order covering multiple financial years under the GST regime were without jurisdiction, and whether availability of a statutory remedy barred writ interference where the impugned action was alleged to be void.
Analysis: The Court applied the GST scheme as interpreted in prior decisions to hold that assessment and demand proceedings must relate to distinct tax periods and that there is no scope for clubbing multiple financial years into one consolidated notice or order. It further held that proceedings issued in breach of this statutory framework are beyond jurisdiction and, therefore, void ab initio. On that basis, the Court held that the existence of an alternate statutory remedy could not prevent exercise of writ jurisdiction against an order that was a nullity. The petitioner's request for installment payment did not validate jurisdictionally defective proceedings.
Conclusion: The consolidated show cause notice, the adjudication order, and the consequential recovery notice were held unsustainable and were quashed, with liberty reserved to proceed afresh, if permissible, separately for each financial year in accordance with law.