The HC dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that petitioners cannot bypass the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication orders. The Court declined to adjudicate on whether the show-cause notices disclosed fraud, willful misstatement or suppression, noting the notices were issued within the three-year period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act and therefore remain competent even if an incorrect section (Section 74) was quoted. The Court held mere misquotation does not render a notice without jurisdiction if it can be sustained under the correct provision. Petition dismissed; petitioners left at liberty to prosecute the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders.
The HC dismissed the writ petition for lack of maintainability, holding that petitioners cannot bypass the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the adjudication orders. The Court declined to adjudicate on whether the show-cause notices disclosed fraud, willful misstatement or suppression, noting the notices were issued within the three-year period under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act and therefore remain competent even if an incorrect section (Section 74) was quoted. The Court held mere misquotation does not render a notice without jurisdiction if it can be sustained under the correct provision. Petition dismissed; petitioners left at liberty to prosecute the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
