Financial-year specific limitation under GST bars clubbing multiple years in one notice, and writ relief may still lie for jurisdictional error.

Section 74 of the CGST Act treats each financial year as a separate limitation unit, so a single show-cause notice cannot validly club multiple financial years into one proceeding; the text says this would indirectly extend limitation for years already barred, making the notice without jurisdiction. It also notes that a writ petition may still be maintained despite the Section 107 appellate remedy where the defect is an ex facie jurisdictional error and no further factual inquiry is needed. On that reasoning, the impugned notice and consequential adjudication order were set aside, while the revenue was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single show-cause notice could be issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for multiple financial years; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether a single show-cause notice could be issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for multiple financial years.

Analysis: Section 74 prescribes a separate limitation framework for each financial year, with the notice and adjudication periods tied to the due date for furnishing the annual return for that financial year. The expression "for the financial year" and the definition of "tax period" indicate that each financial year is a distinct unit for proceedings under the provision. On a strict and harmonious reading of Section 74, clubbing multiple financial years into one notice would allow the department to extend limitation indirectly for years already barred, which is impermissible.

Conclusion: A single show-cause notice covering multiple financial years is not permissible under Section 74, and the impugned notice was without jurisdiction in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Though an appellate remedy existed, the impugned notice suffered from an apparent jurisdictional defect on the face of the record. Where the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar writ intervention. Since the jurisdictional error was ex facie and no further factual inquiry was necessary, the writ court could exercise its constitutional power under Article 226.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show-cause notice and the consequential adjudication order were held unsustainable and were set aside, while leaving the revenue free to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, limitation is financial-year specific, so a consolidated notice cannot validly bundle multiple financial years into one proceeding; an apparent jurisdictional defect under Article 226 can be directly corrected notwithstanding an alternate remedy.

---