M/S Oppo Mobiles India Private Limited v. The Additional Commissioner, Cgst And Ce

Heard Shri Rahul Agarwal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Abhishek Ghosh and Shri Pranav Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue.

Submission is, arising from the same audit report/objection dated

20.06.2023 (date of communication), first, notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued to the petitioner for F.Y. 2020-21, on

29.11.2024. At that time, no other show cause notice was issued for any other financial year.

Later, acting on the same audit report/objection, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.06.2025 for F.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, this time under Section 74 of the aforesaid Act.

Relying on P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise, (2003) 3 SCC 599 as followed in ECE Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, (2004) 13 SCC 719 and Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector of Central Excise, A.P., (2008) 9 STR 314 (SC), it has been submitted, the extended period of limitation later invoked by the revenue is clearly without jurisdiction and in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The issue that had arisen is purely legal. Prima facie, it also appears to be supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court (noted above). 2 WTAX No. 1508 of 2026

Accordingly, at present, writ petition is being entertained, subject to objection that may be filed by the revenue.

Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List thereafter.

For reason of jurisdictional defect noted above, till the next date of listing, the operation and effect of the impugned order shall remain stayed. April 15, 2026 Prakhar (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)