GST show cause notices within limitation cannot be quashed in writ jurisdiction where disputed facts require statutory adjudication.

Challenge to GST show cause notices on limitation and wrongful invocation of section 74 failed because the notices were issued within the prescribed period, and the court refused to quash them in a summary writ proceeding. The court held that the propriety of invoking section 74 had to be examined through the statutory reply and adjudication process, not under Article 226 at the notice stage. As disputed factual issues such as alleged non-cooperation and suppression remained unresolved, writ interference was inappropriate. The notices were left undisturbed and the petitioner was directed to pursue statutory adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the challenge to the show cause notices on the ground of limitation and wrongful invocation of section 74 of the GST enactments was sustainable; (ii) whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 in view of disputed factual questions and the availability of statutory reply and adjudication.

Issue (i): whether the challenge to the show cause notices on the ground of limitation and wrongful invocation of section 74 of the GST enactments was sustainable.

Analysis: The notices were held to have been issued within the prescribed period under section 74 of the GST enactments. The Court also noted that the question of invoking section 74 could not be decided in a summary writ proceeding without the petitioner first filing a reply and the adjudicating authority considering the matter on merits. The plea that the notices should be quashed and fresh notices issued under section 73 was rejected.

Conclusion: The challenge on limitation and on the invocation of section 74 failed and was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 in view of disputed factual questions and the availability of statutory reply and adjudication.

Analysis: The matter involved disputed questions of fact, including the alleged non-cooperation during inspection and the issue of suppression. The Court held that such issues could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and that the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to reply in the statutory proceedings. The proceedings under Article 226 were therefore not a proper forum to short-circuit the adjudicatory process.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held to be not maintainable for interference on these facts and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show cause notices were left undisturbed, and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory adjudication route; the writ challenge failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the impugned tax notices are issued within limitation and the dispute turns on contested facts, the High Court will not quash the notices in writ jurisdiction and will leave the parties to the statutory adjudication process.

---