The Bombay High Court has delivered a definitive ruling that consolidating show cause notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act across multiple financial years is legally impermissible. This judgment reinforces the statutory architecture of GST assessment, ensuring that each financial year remains a distinct tax period with its own limitation period and procedural safeguards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s. Bhawana Steel Traders, challenged a show cause notice dated 06/06/2025 issued by the Joint Director, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Nagpur. The notice alleged suppression of taxable value and short payment of Central GST across six consecutive financial years - from 2018-19 to 2023-24. The notice was issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which permits recovery of tax due to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
Procedural History
- June 2025: Show cause notice issued covering six financial years in a single document.
- October 2025: Respondent No. 2 upheld the notice through an order rejecting the petitioner’s objection.
- December 2025: Writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the legality of clubbing multiple tax periods.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the show cause notice and the subsequent order, arguing that Section 74 does not permit consolidation of notices across distinct financial years, regardless of the nature of the alleged fraud.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 74 of the CGST Act permits the issuance of a single show cause notice aggregating multiple financial years, even where allegations of fraudulent input tax credit (ITC) availment are involved.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on two recent Division Bench judgments of the Bombay High Court - M/s. Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST - which held that the statutory scheme of the CGST Act treats each financial year as a separate tax period. Counsel emphasized that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe a five-year limitation period running separately for each year, tied to the due date of the annual return for that year. Consolidation, they argued, violates the statutory structure and deprives taxpayers of the ability to respond year-wise.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that where fraudulent ITC availment spans multiple years, a consolidated notice is necessary to trace the illegal modality. They cited the Delhi High Court’s judgment in M/s. Mathur Polymers v. Union of India, which permitted such consolidation, and argued that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP against it rendered the Delhi judgment binding. They further claimed that the nature of fraud justifies deviation from the usual annual framework.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of the CGST Act, focusing on the definitions and procedural timelines embedded in the law. It held that Section 2(106) defines a tax period as the period for which a return is required to be furnished, and Sections 39, 44, 37, and 50 collectively establish that liability is computed and assessed on an annual basis, even if returns are filed monthly.
"The Act of 2017... involve a definite tax period, based on the filing of the Return, which can be either monthly or annual Return and if the assessment is based on annual Return, the tax period shall be the relevant financial year."
The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on the Delhi judgment, noting that the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP in limine - a non-merits dismissal that does not create binding precedent. It further emphasized that the Delhi judgment failed to appreciate the statutory architecture: the five-year limitation under Section 74(10) is not a single window for all years but a separate window for each financial year, commencing from the due date of the annual return for that year.
The Court also highlighted that consolidation would collapse distinct limitation periods, merge different evidentiary bases, and impair the taxpayer’s right to respond meaningfully to allegations specific to each year. This, the Court held, violates the principle of natural justice and the explicit year-wise structure of the statute.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Bombay High Court quashed the show cause notice and the impugned order, holding that Section 74 of the CGST Act does not permit consolidation of show cause notices across multiple financial years, even in cases of alleged fraud. The respondents were granted liberty to reissue notices strictly within the confines of the statute, year by year.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Annual Tax Periods Are Statutorily Immutable
- Practitioners must now challenge any consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years on the ground that it violates Section 74(10) and Section 2(106).
- Taxpayers can no longer be compelled to respond to a single notice aggregating unrelated tax periods.
Fraud Does Not Override Statutory Structure
- Allegations of fraud or ITC manipulation cannot be used to justify bypassing the annual tax period framework.
- The nature of the alleged violation does not alter the statutory limitation regime under Section 74.
Precedent Hierarchy in State High Courts Matters
-
Judgments of one High Court do not bind another unless affirmed by the Supreme Court.
-
Where two High Courts conflict, the later judgment within a jurisdiction prevails unless overruled.
-
Practitioners should cite Milroc and Rite Water Solutions as binding authority in Maharashtra and Goa jurisdictions.
-
Always verify whether a show cause notice is issued per financial year or aggregated.
-
If aggregated, file a writ petition immediately under Article 226, citing the Bombay High Court’s reasoning.
-
For pending proceedings, apply for stay on the basis of this judgment pending clarification from the Supreme Court.
