GST notice timing and alternate remedy: prejudice-based challenge fails, with statutory appeal remaining the proper course.

Section 74(2) timing under GST is described as not creating automatic invalidity merely because a show cause notice was not issued six months before the limitation date for the final order. The text states that a prejudice-based approach applies: where the taxpayer received repeated opportunities to respond and attend personal hearing, and the adjudication order was passed within limitation, absence of demonstrated prejudice defeats the challenge. It further states that where the Supreme Court has already directed the taxpayer to the statutory appeal under Section 107 with liberty to raise all permissible contentions, a writ petition against the assessment order should not be entertained, leaving the appellate remedy as the proper course.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice was vitiated for not being issued at least six months before the time limit for passing the order under Section 74(2) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's directions relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal remedy, the writ petition could be entertained against the assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice was vitiated for not being issued at least six months before the time limit for passing the order under Section 74(2) of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Court held that the requirement in Section 74(2) did not operate as an absolute mandatory condition carrying automatic invalidating consequences. The Court applied a prejudice-based approach and noted that the petitioner had been afforded several opportunities to reply and to participate in personal hearing. The order-in-original for the relevant period was also passed within the limitation period, and no real prejudice was shown on account of the timing of the notice.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Section 74(2) failed and was held against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the Supreme Court's directions relegating the petitioner to the statutory appeal remedy, the writ petition could be entertained against the assessment order.

Analysis: The Court noted that the Supreme Court had already observed that the petitioner was left with the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 and had been relegated to that remedy with pre-deposit, while also permitting the petitioner to raise all permissible contentions before the appellate authority. In that background, and considering the litigation history, the Court found no reason to entertain the writ petition against the assessment order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held not maintainable for interference and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was not interfered with, and the writ petition was dismissed leaving the petitioner to the appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ challenge to a GST adjudication order will not succeed on a time-limit objection under Section 74(2) in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, especially where the assessee was given repeated opportunities and the statutory appellate remedy has already been indicated as the appropriate course.

---