IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION Nos. 7941 to 7943 OF 2025 [A. M. Marketplaces Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi through its authorized signatory and Director Ms. Suchishree Mukherjee W/o Sandeep Kunte vs. The Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and ors.]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Anurag Soan with Mr. Onkar Bhope, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Ketki Jaltare, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Mr. A. J. Gohokar, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 5 CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 09-01-2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that affidavit of service is filed. The Registry has not recorded its satisfaction as regards service to respondents. A vague report is filed that petitioner’s counsel has filed affidavit of service.

The Registry shall examine affidavit and make categorical remark/s as regards service to respondents.

This practice shall be followed in all the cases. Registrar (Judicial) shall accordingly, by way instructions, issue circular/office order, as the case may be.

Kept back.

(JUDGE) (JUDGE.)

Later on, heard for some time.

The issue involved is whether time gap of three months should be maintained between issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of Section 73 and passing order under sub-section (10) of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of C.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST-Delhi- South and ors. in W.P. (C) 15508/2024, dated 29-10-2025 wherein while interpreting the provisions, the Court held as under :-

“9. Heard, ld. Counsels for the parties. Sections 73(2) and Section 73(10) of the CGST Act were interpreted by this Court in W.P.(C) 4781/2025 titled Tata Play Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO where it has been observed as under :

20. The limitation for issuance of such a notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act has to be construed in the light of Section 73(2) and 73(10) of the CGST Act. The said two sub-sections are set out below :

"Section 73(2) - The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at least three months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) for issuance of order.

…….

Section 73(10) - The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9)

within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual retum for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund.”

21. A perusal of the above stated provisions would show that an order has to be passed by the 'proper officer' within a period of three years from the due date for furnishing the annual retums for the said financial year. For issuance of a show cause notice, at least three months' period prior to the time limit under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act would be available. Thus, the show cause notice has to be issued at least three months prior to the outer limit prescribed for passing of an order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.

22. In the opinion of this Court, there is a difference in the language of the two sub- sections discussed herein above. Section 73(10) of the CGST Act prescribes an outer limit for passing of an adjudication order under the Act.

23. On the other hand, Section 73(2) of the CGST Act provides that at least three months prior to the outer limit of 3 years for passing an order und