Tata Projects Limited vs Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block,

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 73, 74, 75, 107, 112 - Determination of tax not paid or short paid - Issuance of consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years - Jurisdiction of Proper Officer - Whether a single notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1) can encompass different financial years - Limitation under Section 73(10) and 74(10) - Interpretation of "for any period" and "for such periods" in Sections 73(3) and 74(3) - Distinction between assessment (Chapter XII) and demand and recovery (Chapter XV) - Doctrine of severability - Alternative efficacious remedy.

(B) No statutory bar exists for issuing a consolidated show cause notice under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for multiple financial years. The language of Sections 73(1) and 74(1) does not restrict the notice to a single financial year. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of both sections use the expression "for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1)" indicating that a notice can cover one period and a statement can cover other periods, thus contemplating multiple periods. The limitation periods in sub-sections (10) are for passing orders, not for the scope of the notice. As long as for each financial year included, the notice is issued within the period prescribed under Section 73(2) or 74(2), a consolidated notice is permissible. A consolidated order can also be passed if within the limitation periods. The doctrine of severability applies; if notice for some years is barred, the remaining years can still be adjudicated. (Paras 48-55, 58-60, 70)

(C) The proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 are distinct from assessments under Chapter XII. They are adversarial and adjudicatory in nature, involving determination of tax, interest, and penalty. The definition of "assessment" under Section 2(11) does not include such proceedings. The scheme of the Act separates "Assessment" from "Demand and Recovery". (Paras 61, 62)

(D) The court, after analyzing the statutory framework and considering conflicting High Court decisions, agreed with the views of the Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court (Division Bench), and Allahabad High Court that consolidated notices are permissible, and disagreed with the Kerala High Court, Madras High Court, and earlier Bombay High Court judgments. (Paras 67-69)

Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners in three petitions challenged proceedings initiated under Sections 73 and/or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that the Proper Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue consolidated show cause notices covering multiple financial years (e.g., 2017-18 to 2021-22). The petitioners had alternative remedies under the Act but approached the High Court on a jurisdictional issue. The respondents contended there was no bar to consolidated notices. The court heard the matter on the jurisdictional question alone.

Findings of Court:
The court held that there is no bar in law to issuing a consolidated show cause notice or passing a consolidated order for different financial years under Sections 73 or 74. The Proper Officer in each case was within jurisdiction. The court declined to entertain the petitions on merits as alternative remedies were available, and granted liberty to the petitioners to file appeals within 30 days with a direction to the appellate authorities not to insist on limitation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Proper Officer can issue a consolidated show cause notice under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 encompassing different financial years.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Sections 73 and 74, noting that the language does not restrict notices to a single financial year. The use of "for any period" and "for such periods" in sub-sections (3) and (4) indicates that multiple periods can be covered. The limitation periods in sub-sections (10) are for the issuance of orders, not for the scope of the notice. Each financial year gives rise to a separate cause of action, but a consolidated notice is permissible if issued within the limitation for each year; the doctrine of severability can cure any time-barred years. The distinction between assessment and demand and recovery further supports this interpretation.

Result: All three writ petitions disposed of with directions to avail alternative remedies; interim orders to continue until consideration of stay application if appeals are filed within 30 days from the date of judgment.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Jurisdictional challenge to consolidated show cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act, 2017 covering multiple financial years. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 )

2. Petitioners: each financial year separate, consolidated notice invalid. Respondents: no bar, consolidated notice permissible. (Para 26 , 27 )

3. Consolidated show cause notice permissible; writ petitions dismissed; petitioners directed to avail statutory remedies under Act. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 )

4. Can a Proper Officer issue a consolidated show cause notice under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years?

Yes, there is no statutory bar; consolidated notice and order are permissible provided limitation periods for each financial year are respected. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 70 )

5. Are proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act part of assessment or demand and recovery?

They are part of demand and recovery under Chapter XV, distinct from assessment under Chapter XII; they are adversarial and adjudicatory. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 )

6. How are limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) computed for consolidated proceedings?

Limitation runs separately for each financial year from due date of annual return; consolidated notice must be issued within earliest period and order within respective periods. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 58 )

7. Does the possibility of prejudice to the assessee render consolidated proceedings invalid?

No, prejudice does not divest jurisdiction; each financial year is a separate cause of action, and the doctrine of severability applies. (Para 57 , 59 )

8. What is the distinction under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Sections 73 and 74 regarding statements for other periods?

A statement under sub-section (3) for periods other than those covered in the original notice is deemed a notice under sub-section (1) if grounds are same. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 )

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1125

A consolidated show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 covering multiple financial years is permissible as long as for each year the notice is issued within the prescribed limitation period.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a Proper Officer issue a consolidated show cause notice under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years?

5. Are proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act part of assessment or demand and recovery?

6. How are limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) computed for consolidated proceedings?

7. Does the possibility of prejudice to the assessee render consolidated proceedings invalid?

8. What is the distinction under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Sections 73 and 74 regarding statements for other periods?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1125

A consolidated show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 covering multiple financial years is permissible as long as for each year the notice is issued within the prescribed limitation period.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a Proper Officer issue a consolidated show cause notice under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years?

5. Are proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act part of assessment or demand and recovery?

6. How are limitation periods under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) computed for consolidated proceedings?

7. Does the possibility of prejudice to the assessee render consolidated proceedings invalid?

8. What is the distinction under Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Sections 73 and 74 regarding statements for other periods?

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis