Facts:The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 12.06.2024 proposing levy of tax and penalty for the tax periods 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the notice before the High Court contending that a single show cause notice cannot be issued covering multiple assessment periods or financial years.Court Decision:The High Court held that assessment proceedings for each taxation period or financial year must be initiated through separate show cause notices. Since the impugned notice covered multiple taxation periods in a single show cause notice, the Court set aside the notice following the earlier judgment of the same Court. The writ petition was allowed with liberty to the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:•    S.J Constructions vs. Assistant Commissioner & Ors. 

BACKGROUNDThe petitioner, engaged in works contract and construction services, was subjected to audit proceedings which resulted in a Show-Cause Notice for alleged non-payment of tax for the period April 2018 to March 2019. An adjudication order was passed confirming a tax demand under Section 73 of the CGST/OGST Act, 2017. The petitioner filed an application under Section 161 of the GST Act for rectification of the said order, which was rejected. Being constrained by the lapse of the time limit under Section 107 to challenge the original adjudication order directly, the petitioner filed an appeal against the rectification rejection order. The First Appellate Authority rejected this appeal as time-barred vide order dated 17.09.2025. Recovery proceedings were subsequently initiated, followed by garnishee proceedings against a third party. The petitioner thereupon filed the present writ petition. CRUCIAL FACTSThe adjudication order confirming demand was passed on 30.04.2024 under Section 73. The petitioner filed a rectification application on 06.05.2024 under Section 161 of the GST Act. This application was rejected on 17.01.2025. The petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 107 on 21.02.2025 against the rectification rejection order, which was admitted on 01.03.2025. However, the First Appellate Authority issued a show-cause notice as to why the appeal should not be rejected as time-barred, and after hearing, rejected the appeal vide order dated 17.09.2025 as beyond the period prescribed under Section 107. Recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 19.12.2025 and garnishee notice in Form GST DRC-09 dated 02.01.2026 were thereafter issued. The petitioner's core argument before the High Court was that the period of limitation for the appeal should be reckoned from the date of the rejection of the rectification application (17.01.2025) and not from the date of the original adjudication order, and that the rectification order merges with the original order thereby keeping the appeal window open.  COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim — Crucial)On Maintainability of Writ when GSTAT is functional:"Having found that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can very well be taken as ground of appeal before the Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the GST Act, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter wishes to relegate the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy."On the General Principle of Writ vs. Statutory Forum:"It is no longer res integra that the Writ Court can be approached assailing an order for which the forum of appeal is provided and the same is entertainable in the event the forum is not made functional or constituted as the person cannot be rendered remediless. Equally it is true that if conditions are attached to filing an appeal before such forum, the Writ Court shall ensure strict compliance thereof as a person cannot steal a march taking a shelter that there is no inhibition in the writ Court in entertaining the writ petition and passing an order taking departure from the said statutory provision."On GSTAT being now functional:"Since the forum has already been provided in the statute, which is now made functional and the period for filing the appeal has been specified in the above Notification/Circular/Order, it would not be proper for the Writ Court to keep such writ petitions pending as the dispute raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition can be adjudicated by the said forum."On No Opinion on Merits:"This Court makes it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits on the Orders impugned in the writ petition." FINAL VERDICTThe writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112 of the GST Act, after depositing the pre-deposit amount as required under Section 112(8), within the timelines prescribed in the Government Notification S.O. No. 4220(E) dated 17.09.2025. No opinion expressed on merits. Recovery proceedings not stayed.👐 FLAT (Neither relief granted nor petition dismissed on merits — relegated to GSTAT) 

Facts:The petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act alleging suppression of taxable value and short payment of CGST for the period April 2018 to March 2024. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, assessment and recovery of tax are linked to specific tax periods and financial years. The Act prescribes limitation under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) separately for each financial year, based on the due date of filing the annual return.The Court relied on earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court holding that consolidation of multiple financial years in a single show cause notice is not permissible, as it aggregates different tax periods having separate limitation periods and statutory treatment.Accordingly, the show cause notice dated 30.05.2025 was quashed and set aside. The Court granted liberty to the authorities to issue fresh notices strictly in accordance with Section 74 of the CGST Act, if there is no other legal impediment.Cases Referred by Court:·         Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2203 of 2025 (Bombay High Court, Goa Bench)·         Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur & Ors., Writ Petition No. 466 of 2025 (Bombay High Court)·         Mathur Polymers v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 2394 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)·         Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf Tumsar, 1978 (2) ELTJ 624 (Bombay) 

Facts:The petitioner challenged the order dated 30.09.2025 by which the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The demand order dated 21.03.2024 under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST Act raised tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner filed the appeal under Section 107 after a delay of about 284 days and sought condonation of delay stating that the order on the portal was not noticed due to lack of computer knowledge.Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 107(1) an appeal must be filed within three months and under Section 107(4) the appellate authority may condone delay only for an additional period of one month. Once the maximum period of 120 days is exhausted, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can condone the delay.Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, the Court held that the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to extend limitation beyond the statutory period prescribed by the statute. As the appeal was filed after 284 days and beyond the maximum permissible period, the writ petition was dismissed and the order of the appellate authority was upheld. Cases Referred by Court:·         Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681·         Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 42·         Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors.·         Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited·         Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.·         Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v. Electricity Department represented by its Superintending Engineer, Port Blair & Ors.·         Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409·         A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602·         Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 584·         Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996·         Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India·         Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.·         Phoenix Plasts Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-I), Bangalore·         Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (Full Bench, Andhra Pradesh High Court)  

Facts :The petitioner, a trader in rubber products, purchased goods from a supplier and paid GST amounting to Rs.1,11,60,830/-. The supplier filed GSTR-1 but failed to deposit tax with the Government and filed nil GSTR-3B returns. The department denied ITC to the petitioner, blocked credit, and issued a demand under Section 73. The petitioner challenged the demand order dated 17.05.2022 and the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c). Court Decision:The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) but read down the provision. It held that ITC cannot be denied to a bona fide purchasing dealer where transactions are genuine and tax has been paid to the supplier. The Court set aside the demand order and directed grant of ITC to the petitioner, holding that denial is permissible only in cases of fraud, collusion, or non-genuine transactions. Cases Referred by Court:•    B.R. Enterprises v. State of U.P. •    CST v. Radhakrishan •    On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of NCT of Delhi •    Commissioner of Trade and Taxes v. Arise India Ltd. •    Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade and Tax •    National Plasto Moulding v. State of Assam •    McLeod Russel India Ltd. v. Union of India •    Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT •    Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT •    Jain Bros. v. Union of India •    Chief Commissioner of CGST v. Safari Retreats Pvt. Ltd.