Show-cause notice timing under Section 73 requires reasonable opportunity, while contradictory tax treatment demands fresh consistent adjudication.

Section 73(2), read with the outer limitation in Section 73(10), requires issuance of a show-cause notice sufficiently before the limitation deadline; it does not impose a fixed three-month interval between notice and adjudication. Reasonable time and opportunity to respond remain necessary under natural justice. Assessment orders for the same period cannot rest on inconsistent premises that supplies were respectively exempt and taxable. Such contradiction requires fresh consideration of the supplies' tax status through consistent adjudication after reasonable opportunity, subject to the stipulated tax-remittance condition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 73(2) mandates a minimum three-month interval between issuance of the show-cause notice and the adjudication order; (ii) Whether two assessment orders for the same assessment period could proceed on mutually inconsistent bases regarding the exempt or taxable character of supplies.

Issue (i): Whether Section 73(2) mandates a minimum three-month interval between issuance of the show-cause notice and the adjudication order.

Analysis: Section 73(2) must be read with Section 73(10), which prescribes the outer limitation for issuance of the adjudication order. The requirement that notice be issued at least three months before expiry of that limitation ensures adequate time for meaningful adjudication and prevents issuance of notice immediately before the limitation deadline. It does not prescribe a compulsory three-month gap between notice and adjudication where the notice was issued more than three months before the statutory deadline. A reasonable interval and reasonable opportunity to respond remain necessary under principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: Section 73(2) does not require a mandatory three-month interval between the show-cause notice and the adjudication order; this issue is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether two assessment orders for the same assessment period could proceed on mutually inconsistent bases regarding the exempt or taxable character of supplies.

Analysis: One order treated input tax credit as having been availed and utilised in respect of exempt supplies, whereas the other proceeded on the basis that the supplies were taxable and not exempt. These inconsistent factual and legal premises warranted fresh consideration, including examination of whether the supplies were exempt.

Conclusion: The contradictory assessment bases cannot stand and require reconsideration after reasonable opportunity; this issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessments require fresh, consistent adjudication upon fulfilment of the stipulated tax remittance condition.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice requirement linked to the statutory limitation for adjudication cannot be construed as imposing a separate fixed interval between the notice and the adjudication order, although reasonable opportunity to answer the notice must be afforded.

---