Ms Rithwik Projects Private Limited Through Its Senior Vice President vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the show cause notice and the impugned order, which consolidated various financial years/tax periods, were issued without jurisdiction. The Court relied heavily on the decision in "M/s Milroc Good Earth Developers V/s Union of India and Others," which held that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax periods under the GST Act and that such consolidated notices are beyond the period of limitation and without jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that orders passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction are nullities, void ab initio, and cannot be acted upon, citing "Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. L.V.A. Dikshitulu" and "Lalita Panjabrao Phalke and Others Vs. Jeevan Tulshiram Phalke and Others." Consequently, the impugned show cause notice and order were quashed and set aside. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that since the show cause notice and the impugned order were wholly without jurisdiction, the availability of a statutory remedy could not be a bar to entertaining the writ petition. The recovery notice was also quashed. The Respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh notices strictly in accordance with Section 74 of the CGST Act for respective financial years, if permissible in law.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Rithwik Projects Private Limited, a company engaged in construction and infrastructure development, challenged a show cause notice dated June 29, 2022, an order dated December 21, 2023, and a recovery notice dated November 21, 2025. The show cause notice, issued by Respondent No. 3 (Additional Commissioner CGST), proposed a GST demand of Rs. 2,54,40,532/- for the period July 1, 2017, to August 31, 2021, along with interest and penalty. The Petitioner had paid fees and royalties to the government for services related to the allocation, permission, or leasing of natural resources. The impugned order confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the CGST Act and MGST Act. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 (Assistant Commissioner CGST) issued a recovery notice to the Petitioner's bank.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice and consequential order, consolidating multiple tax periods (July 1, 2017, to August 31, 2021), are legally sustainable under the CGST Act and MGST Act? 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the Petitioner having an alternate statutory remedy and having previously requested installment payments for the dues? Petitioner's Arguments: - The Petitioner argued that the issues are squarely covered by the High Court's decision in "M/s Milroc Good Earth Developers V/s Union of India and Others" (Writ Petition No. 2203 of 2025), which held that consolidating various financial years/tax periods in a show cause notice is without jurisdiction. - They also relied on decisions from the Nagpur Bench and a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court that followed the "Milroc" precedent. - The Petitioner contended that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and cannot be acted upon, irrespective of any admission of liability or request for installments. Respondents' Arguments: - The Respondents opposed the petition by relying on a co-ordinate bench decision in "M/s Ritwik Projects Pvt Ltd., V/s Union of India and Others" (Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2025) and the Apex Court's decision in "Rikhab Chand Jain V/s Union of India and Others" (Civil Appeal No. 6719 of 2012). - They argued that the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious statutory remedy and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained. - The Respondents further submitted that since the Petitioner accepted the liability and requested installment payments, they cannot now challenge the show cause notice and the order.