Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) vs Lakshmi Mobile Accessories

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ker) 135

A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S.
Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Mobile Accessories – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Muhammed Rafiq, Special Government Pleader
For the Respondent: Sri. K.S.Hariharan Nair, Smt. Divya Ravindran

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The State, represented by the Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) and the Joint Commissioner, Tax Payer Services of the State GST Department are the appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.01.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C).No.2911 of 2025.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:

The respondent herein had challenged Ext.P1 show cause notice that sought to invoke Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”] to demand differential tax, interest and penalty from it on an allegation of suppression of turnover during the financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24. The main ground of challenge against Ext.P1 show cause notice in the writ petition was that inasmuch as the appellants herein had issued a single consolidated notice for six different financial years, the respondent was prejudiced in that the time limit for submitting its reply to the show cause notice in respect of each of the assessment years in question would be circumscribed by the time limit prescribed in Section 74(10) of the CGST/SGST Act for the earliest of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the provided case entries indicate that *Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories* (specifically referenced as 2025 KHC OnLine 149) or *Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner* (2025 KHC OnLine 467) have been overruled, reversed, or invalidated.

Conversely, the documents consistently identify these cases as the governing authority for the proposition that "a composite notice for multiple assessment years was found to be not legally sustainable." Therefore, no entries in this list meet the criteria for "bad law."

**Category: Cited as Controlling Precedent**

These cases (a vast majority of the list, such as M/S. ALIN CASHEWS vs UNION OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18381, YEROOR SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18177, K.P. Shahul Hameed vs State Tax Officer - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30287, etc.) contain identical language indicating that the court *followed* or *relied upon* the decisions in *Lakshmi Mobile Accessories* (2025 KHC OnLine 149) and *Tharayil Medicals* (2025 KHC OnLine 467) to rule that composite notices/orders for multiple assessment years are not legally sustainable.

**Category: Case Law References/Citations**

These entries represent the core citations of the principle established in the lead cases. They function as the primary authority utilized by the Kerala High Court in subsequent matters.

*Examples:* Tharayil Medicals vs Deputy Commissioner - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2022, Pramur Homes And Shelters vs Union Of India Represented Herein By The Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2088, SEGO FRESCHE vs INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE UNIT, SGST DEPARTMENT KOTTAKKAL - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20184. These are cited in the context of being the definitive legal standard for challenging tax assessment processes.

The following entries are categorized as "uncertain" not because the legal principle is in question, but because the provided text is truncated or incomplete, making it impossible to determine the specific procedural status of that individual filing beyond its mention of the primary case laws:

Reasoning: These entries provide only the title of the case, often followed by an opening bracket, but lack specific judicial commentary, holding language, or full case citations. They are likely file headers or case index entries.

2025 Supreme(Ker) 135

A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S.Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) – AppellantVersusLakshmi Mobile Accessories – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) VS Lakshmi Mobile Accessories - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 135

Pramur Homes And Shelters vs Union Of India Represented Herein By The Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 2088

MARIPOSA BEACH GROVE THR ITS PARTNER SANJAY DATTU NAIK GAONKAR vs UNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND 4 ORS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 203097

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX vs M/S CHIMNEY HILLS EDUCATION SOCIETY - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24088

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX vs M/S CHIMNEY HILLS EDUCATION SOCIETY - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24618

Sate Bank of India Through its Authorized Signatory Debabrata Bhowmick Vs Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Finance and ors - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3660

M/s.JK Enterprises vs Union of India - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28528

S.J. Constructions vs Assistant Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(AP) 1291

Tharayil Medicals vs Deputy Commissioner - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2022

DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED vs STATE OF KERALA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18616

A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, EASWARAN S.
Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Mobile Accessories – Respondent