SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2173

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
M/s. JK Enterprises, Through its Partner, Mr. S. Elred Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.5597 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.4672 and 4673 of 2026
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. Bharat Raichandani for Mr. Shaazim Shagar
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Murali Ganesh, Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, AGP, Mr. R. Gowrishankar.

The court established that the issuance of a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years is impermissible under the GST Act, requiring separate notices for each year to respect jurisdictional limitations.

Headnote:(A) The Constitution of India - Article 226 - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Issuance of single show cause notice for multiple assessment years - The Court ruled that bunching of show cause notices is impermissible, emphasizing that notices must be issued separately for each financial year per Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act. (Paras 10 to 20)

(B) Jurisdictional Issues - Due to the improper clustering of notices, the respondents acted beyond their jurisdiction, rendering the order void ab initio and violating statutory requirements. (Paras 27 to 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order consolidating show cause notices for the financial years 2018-19 to 2021-22, claiming it was illegal and jurisdictionally flawed based on established judicial precedent. (Paras 3 and 4)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for more than one financial year impermissible and quashed the impugned order, directing that separate notices be issued for each year. (Paras 9 and 10)

Issues: The main issues were whether issuing a single show cause notice for multiple years violated GST provisions and jurisdictional overreach by the respondents. (Paras 4 and 27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that notices must adhere strictly to the limitations and specific requirements under Sections 73 and 74, without clustering periods, affirming the need for separate adjudication for each assessment year. (Paras 10 to 20)

Result: The impugned order is set aside; separate show cause notices for each assessment year must be issued. (Paras 9 and 10)

Table of Content
1. parties involved in the writ petition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge on issuance of combined show cause notices. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's reasoning regarding tax periods. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. analysis of statutory provisions concerning notice issuance. (Para 11)

ORDER :

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

This writ petition has been filed challenging impugned order dated 30.12.2025 passed by the 4th respondent.

2. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in the present petition is with regard to the bunching of show cause notice/orders, i.e., issuance of single show cause notice/orders for four financial years, viz., 2018-19 to 2021-22.

4. Further, he would submit that the aforesaid issue has already been decided by this Court in R.A. And Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, Chennai South reported in (2025) 33 Centax 14 (Mad.). Hence, he requests this Court to quash the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by placing reliance on the circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, dated 15.09.2025, would submit that in the said circular, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, upon considering various judgments, has arrived at the conclusion that a single show cause notice can be issued for multiple assessment years. He would further submit that, on the strength of the said circular, the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, once it has been held that the bunching of show cause notices is impermissible, upon analysing the various provisions of the GST Act and arriving at the conclusion that a show cause notice can be issued only on the basis of monthly returns, the question of issuing a consolidated (bunched) show cause notice does not arise. This Court has already decided the said issue in R.A. and Co. vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, Chennai South, reported in (2025) 33 Centax 14 (Mad.). The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

“5. In the case on hand, the only issue that has to be decided is as to whether the respondents can pass single assessment order for more than one financial year ?

6. Now, let me examine the provisions of Sections 73 &74 of the GST Act, which deals with regard to the issuance of show cause notice. Hence, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portions of Sections 73 & 74 of the GST Act, which read as follows:

“73. Determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any willful-misstatement or suppression of facts.

(1) Where it appears to the proper officer that any tax has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, he shall serve notice on the person chargeable with tax which has not been so paid or which has been so short paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, or who has wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under section 50 and a penalty leviable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.

(2) The proper officer shall issue the notice under sub-section (1) at leas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top