The Bombay High Court has set aside a GST demand of nearly ₹2.54 crore that was raised through a single show cause notice covering a period of more than four years.
The Court ruled that the proceedings lacked jurisdiction and held that such a demand could not be sustained under the applicable legal framework.
A Division Bench of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav permitted a petition of Rithwik Projects Private Limited.
Read Also: Bombay HC Sets Aside GST SCN U/S 74 for Clubbing Multiple FY in a Single Notice
The Bench said that the controversy was already covered by earlier decisions of the Court, especially Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India.
Rithwik Projects Private Limited has the business of integrated construction, infrastructure development, and management. It had obtained services relating to the allocation, permission, and leasing of natural resources from the government. Between July 1, 2017, and August 31, 2021, the company filed royalty charges.
GST authorities on June 29, 2022, had issued a show cause notice (SCN) asking for nearly Rs 2.54 crore in tax, including interest and penalty.
Before the HC, the company contested proceedings, claiming that a single SCN could not include multiple financial years.
The petition has been countered by the revenue. It claimed that the company had an effective alternative regulatory remedy. It also specified the request of the company to file the dues in instalments and claimed that the company, on accepting its obligation, could not contest the SCN and the order.
The bench, quashing those objections, referred to settled principles that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. The order cannot be verified by waiver, acquiescence, or admission, it said.
The court stated, “Since the show-cause notice and the impugned order are without jurisdiction, the same are void ab initio and cannot be acted upon, irrespective of admission of liability on the part of petitioner.”
Important: GST SCN Valid Even If Verification Report Is Unshared, Madras HC Orders Dept to Furnish Report
The bench said that once the SCN and the adjudication order were determined to be completely without jurisdiction, the availability of a statutory remedy could not restrict the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The Court overturned the SCN issued on June 29, 2022, the order validating the demand, and the recovery proceedings that followed.
Meanwhile, it allows GST authorities to issue fresh notices for the pertinent financial years, given that this action is otherwise allowable in law.
| Case Title | Rithwik Projects Private Limited vs. Union of India |
| Case No. | WRIT PETITION NO.4061 OF 2026 |
| For the Petitioner | Mr V. D. Sapkal and Mr Abhijit C. Darandale |
| For the Respondent | Mr D. S. Ladda and Mr P. P. Kothar |
| Bombay High Court | Read Order |
