GST limitation and clubbing challenges should be pursued through the Section 107 appellate remedy.

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice dated 27 June 2024 that allegedly clubbed Financial Years 2017–18 and 2022–23, and a consequential demand of ₹6,21,64,552. She contended that the consolidated notice was impermissible and that the demand was barred by limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017

The GST authorities opposed the writ petition on the ground that an appeal under Section 107 was available, and stated that ₹2,35,233 had been recovered

The writ petition and connected application were disposed of without a decision on the merits

Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act

Whether the consolidated show-cause notice and consequential demand were barred by limitation or otherwise without jurisdiction; and whether those issues should be decided in the writ petition or left to the appellate authority

Section 107 of the CGST Act provides a statutory appellate remedy against the impugned demand.

The Court considered that an efficacious alternative remedy was available and that questions of law, including limitation and jurisdiction, could be raised before the appellate authority

Although the petitioner relied on Section 74 and its limitation period, the Court did not decide the proper interpretation or application of that provision.

The Court viewed the issues concerning limitation, jurisdiction, and the permissibility of clubbing different Financial Years as questions that could be more effectively adjudicated in the statutory appeal

It therefore declined to decide the merits in the writ proceedings and directed the petitioner to pursue the Section 107 remedy, while expressly preserving all questions of law for the appellate authority

The petitioner was directed to deposit the balance 10% pre-deposit after adjustment of the ₹2,35,233 already recovered; any appeal was to be entertained and decided within eight weeks from communication of the order

No coercive action was to be taken until the appeal attained finality, and all issues, including jurisdiction and limitation, were left open