JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Raichandani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioners in WP(C) No.2922/2025 and WP(C) No.20/2026 and Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in WP(C) No.1113/2026. I have also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The writ petitioners in the three writ petitions have alternative and efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Central goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’). However, the writ petitioners have approached this Court raising a common jurisdictional issue on the maintainability of the proceedings initiated against them. It is under such circumstances, the three writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. The jurisdictional issue which has been raised in the batch of writ petitions is as to whether the Proper Officer in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act of 2017 would have the jurisdiction to issue a consolidated show cause notice encompassing different financial years.

4. It is the specific case of the Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions that if the jurisdictional issue is decided in their favour, the entire proceedings which have been initiated against them would be without jurisdiction and accordingly, the orders which have been assailed in the present proceedings cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.

5. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Senior counsel for the CGST submitted that the jurisdictional question which has been raised is a completely misconceived one taking into account the language employed in Sections 73 and 74 of the Act of 2017. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the Respondents that as the Petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedies which are available under the Act of 2017, this Court may not like to entertain the present batch of writ petitions.

6. In the backdrop of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the settled principles of law advocates the necessity of deciding the jurisdictional issue and depending upon the outcome, this Court may pass appropriate directions.

7. A brief summary of the facts which led to the filing of the writ petitions are required to be examined for deciding the jurisdictional issue which are dealt herein under:

CONSPECTUS OF FACTS IN THE THREE WRIT PETITIONS:

WP(C) No.2922/2025:

8. The Petitioner herein is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Act of 2017. The Petitioner is engaged in the supply of works contract services. The Respondent Department had conducted an audit of the records of the Petitioner for the Financial Year 2017-18 (from July, 2017 onwards) to 2021-22 (till March, 2022). The Final Audit Report dated 13.12.2023 was issued in FORM GST ADT-02. It is the case of the Petitioner that during the course of the audit as well as subsequent thereto, the Petitioner had paid various amounts.

9. Be that as it may, on 27.12.2023, a Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 74(1) of the Act of 2017 for the periods from 2018-19 to 2021-22. On the next date, i.e. on 28.12.2023, another Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 73(1) of the Act of 2017 for the period from 2018-19. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner participated in the said proceedings and thereupon, an Order-in Original dated 30.04.2024 was passed. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.5. On 06.02.2025, the Respondent No.5 confirmed the demand as proposed in the Show Cause Notices dated 27.12.2023 and 28.12.2023. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that in terms with Section 112 of the Act of 2017, any person aggrieved by an order passed agai