Composite Show Cause Notices under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act can be issued involving multiple tax periods, as adjudication procedures differ from assessment mechanisms, allowing for broader interpretations of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Mr. Varun Srivastava, Mr Salil Arora, Mr.Nalin Talwar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thakur, Mr. Suyash Agarwal, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Mr. Bharat Raichandani (through video conferencing) alongwith Namit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sudhanshu Yadav and Mr. Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for Union of India; Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi, Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Mr. Krishna Agarwal, Mr. Amit Mahajan and Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue, Mr. Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Arvind Mishra, learned Standing Counsel and Mr.Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present batch of petitions has been filed to challenge the proceedings initiated under sections 74 and 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (collectively described as the Acts). Since these petitions raise common issues, they have been heard together. Broadly, it has been canvassed:

(i) it is not open to the revenue authorities to issue a composite Show Cause Notice (in short ‘SCN’) for different tax periods or to more than one noticee, especially for different Financial Years (in short ‘FYs’);

(ii) in some of the cases such SCNs and Adjudication Orders have been passed in violation of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 6 (2)(b) of the Acts. That may never be done.

(iii) another, objection has arisen in one of the petitions - that in any case, it may be impermissible in law for two different authorities/Proper Officers, to pass separate orders both referable to one SCN;

(iv) Further challenge has been raised in one petition to direction issued by the respondent authorities (to the service recipients of the petitioner), to withhold all payments due to the petitioners.

3. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of other High Courts. It has been strenuously urged, in same set of facts involving the same legal context, i.e. the Acts, the interpretation made by the High Courts at Calcutta, Karnataka, Kerala, Bombay, Madras and Andhra Pradesh may be followed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue have relied on another set of decisions of other High Courts to contend, the view taken by the Delhi High Court, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Calcutta High Court, Kerala High Court and Bombay High Court, to contend that a composite notice may be issued as it does not cause any prejudice and it does not involve any violation of the law. To the extent, the basis of the proposed demands and the proposed demands of tax and penalty have been clearly quantified, it remains with the noticee to respond to such notices in such way and in such manner as may be advised.

5. As to the remaining contentions, it has been submitted, statutory remedy of reply and appeal is available to the noticees. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present batch of petitions.

6. Before proceeding further, we may reduce the bare facts involved in these cases in tabular form:

7. Next, the facts giving rise to Writ Tax No. 7515 of 2025 (M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others), may be noted in brief. On 07.06.2019, a search was conducted in the case of that petitioner M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. by the Central GST Authorities. Also, on 24.2.2020 officers of the State GST Department conducted a search at the premises of the said petitioner and seized a consignment of scented tobacco and books of accounts. A summary order wa