https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777625 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that the court would not at this stage decide whether allegations amounted to fraud, willful misstatement or suppression. The notices were issued within the three-year limitation under Section 73(10), so they were not patently without jurisdiction merely because an incorrect section was quoted. Petitioners were not permitted to bypass the alternate statutory remedy; they were left free to pursue the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777625 HC dismissed the writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, holding that the court would not at this stage decide whether allegations amounted to fraud, willful misstatement or suppression. The notices were issued within the three-year limitation under Section 73(10), so they were not patently without jurisdiction merely because an incorrect section was quoted. Petitioners were not permitted to bypass the alternate statutory remedy; they were left free to pursue the appeals already instituted against the impugned adjudication orders. Case-Laws GST Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777625