2026-VIL-377-BOM
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-377-BOM

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Reference to Larger Bench - Validity of issuance of Consolidated Show Cause Notice under Sections 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Difference of opinion between various High Courts and Co-ordinate benches of this Court - Whether consolidated show cause notice can be issued for multiple financial years/tax periods or it should be issued separately for each financial year – HELD - Although this Court would be bound by the decision of the coordinate bench in Milroc Good Earth Developers case, however, there are significant legal issues raised by the Department, including to rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court, which deserve due consideration - There is no legislative intent to confine the authority of the proper officer to issue a show cause notice only for a specific period for which one return could be filed. The sub-section (3) of Sections 73 and 74 specifically uses the words "for any period under sub-section (1)" and "such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1)", which indicates that the legislature has not confined the operation of sub-section (1) and has empowered the proper officer to issue a show cause notice for different periods – From the conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Sections 73/74, there is no indication that sub-section (10) of Sections 73 and 74, which prescribes the limitation period for passing an order, in any manner controls or restricts the operation of sub-section (1) read with sub-sections (2) and (3) which empower the proper officer to issue a show cause notice - Further, there is no such indication that sub-section (10) which confines itself to an order being passed under sub-section (9), when providing for limitation in that regard, in any manner controls, restricts or creates an embargo on the proper officer exercising jurisdiction to issue a SCN by clubbing the different periods – To consider a bar under sub-section (1) to issue a consolidated SCN for different periods merely because sub-section (10) provides for limitation in passing of orders would amount to an incorrect reading of sub-section (1) Sections 73/74, imposing an unwarranted restriction to the operation and its legislative intent - The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Mathur Polymers v. Union of India and Ambika Traders v. Commr. have taken a view contrary to the decision in Milroc Good Earth Developers, and the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLPs against these decisions. Accordingly, the proceedings be placed by the Registry before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench to consider the correctness of the decision in Milroc Good Earth Developers and the legal issues arising thereof – Ordered accordingly
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

Security-Code
New Code?
New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?