Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3660

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Rollmet LLP – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 16848 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 1495 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 1698 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 1847 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 1117 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 2127 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 2140 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 2202 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 3388 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 2031 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 6359 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 6902 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 17159 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 10267 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 10274 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 18618 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 2017 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 14606 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 16077 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 15750 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 17765 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO. 1878 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 1659 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 1658 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 1656 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 11901 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 12468 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 4002 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14256 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13604 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 2021 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 2608 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 20775 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 3352 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 3755 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 4894 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION NO. 4279 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 36297 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION NO. 5271 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arshad Hidayatullah, Shailaja Kher Hidayatullah, Makarand Joshi, Chandni Tanna, Prathamesh Chavan, Abhishek A. Rastogi, Pooja M. Rastogi, Minal Songire, Aarya More, Prakash Shah, Mihir Mehta, Mohit Raval, Jas Sanghavi, Vikas Poojary, Bharat Raichandani, Bhagrati Sahu, Brijesh Pathak, Anjali Joshi, Mahir Chablani, Prathamesh Gargate, Keval Shailesh Shah, Prasad Paranjape, Kumar Harshvardhan, Nidhi Doshi, Kevin Gogri, Sonakshi Singh, Darius Shroff, Mayank Jain, Sakshi Upadhyaya, Marmik Kamdar, Deepali Kamble, Gaurav Mhatre, Saket R. Ketkar
For the Respondents: Karan Adik, Niyati Mankad, Priyanka Singh, Subir Kumar, Sangeeta Yadav, Niyanta Trivedi, Diksha Pandey, Mamta Omle, Jitendra B. Mishra, S.D. Deshpande, Rupesh Dubey, Ram Ochani, Harshad Shingnapurkar, Maya Majumdar, Abhishek Mishra, S.D.Vyas, D.S. Deshmukh, Savita A. Prabhune, Aditya R. Deolekar, Suman Kumar Das, Siddhartha Chandrashekar, Megha S Bajoria, Jyoti Chavan, Amar Mishra, Himanshu Takke, Shruti Vyas

The court referred the issue of whether a single consolidated show-cause notice for multiple financial years is valid under the tax statute to a Larger Bench, noting conflicting judicial interpretations and the necessity of interpreting machinery provisions to maintain the workability of adjudication procedures.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 73 and 74 - Determination of tax liability - Issuance of consolidated show-cause notice for multiple financial years - Whether permissible - The statutory scheme for demand and recovery does not explicitly prohibit the issuance of a consolidated notice for multiple periods. A limitation for passing an adjudication order under Section 73(10) or 74(10) is a distinct procedural requirement and does not restrict the authority of the proper officer to issue a notice under Section 73(1) or 74(1). (Paras 1, 19, 28)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Machinery provisions - Adjudication proceedings are dispute-based and distinct from return-based assessment procedures - Machinery provisions in a taxing statute must be interpreted to ensure workability and avoid resulting in an absurdity or rendering the statute ineffective. (Paras 24, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
Multiple petitioners challenged the issuance of single, consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years. They contended that the statutory framework requires period-wise self-assessment and limits adjudication notices to specific financial years. The revenue authorities argued that consolidation of proceedings for multiple periods is procedurally permissible and does not violate the limitation period for each individual year.

Findings of Court:
The court observed a significant conflict in judicial opinion regarding the legality of combined adjudication notices. It noted that while some decisions held such consolidation to be without jurisdiction, others emphasized that the framework for demand and recovery allows for composite notices to address interconnected transactions effectively. The court identified that the interpretation of the statutory machinery and the effect of supreme judicial orders required clarification.

Issues: Whether the provisions of the Act create an embargo on issuing a consolidated show-cause notice for multiple financial years and whether the procedural limitation for passing adjudication orders renders such notices void.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the conflicting judicial views and the need for a purposive interpretation of the Act warranted reference to a Larger Bench. It held that the limitation period for passing an order is independent of the issuance of the show-cause notice, and a literal interpretation should not preclude the functionality of the adjudication mechanism.

Result: The matter is referred to a Larger Bench for a resolution of the questions of law. Existing interim orders are to continue.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges consolidated show-cause notice based on separate financial year limitations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. cleavage of judicial opinion on consolidated notices requires re-assessment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. petitioners argue cgst act mandates year-wise limitation and separate assessments. (Para 7)
4. revenue argues consolidation is procedural and does not bypass statutory limitation. (Para 8)
5. statutory analysis suggests no inherent legislative embargo on consolidated adjudication. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. previous precedents are conflicting; court questions milroc analysis on jurisdictional limitations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
7. legal questions on consolidated notice validity referred to larger bench. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

P. C.:

1. In this batch of petitions the primary issue raised by the petitioners relates to the issuance of a single consolidated show-cause notice under Section(s) 73/74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the “CGST ACT”) bunching multiple financial years. It is the Petitioners’ contention that the same is against the mandate of Section 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, inasmuch as according to the Petitioners, the statutory scheme requires period-wise self-assessment and a year-wise limitation, thereby rendering a composite show-cause notice without jurisdiction.

2. The Petitioners have contended that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Goa, in the case of Milroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of India ¹[2026] 104 GSTL 45 (Bombay)[09-10-2025] (for short ‘Milroc’) has held that there is no provision in the CGST Act to club various tax periods in issuance of a show cause notice, hence, a consolidated show cause notice issued to the petitioners by clubbing the different periods/financial years, was held to be invalid and without jurisdiction. It is hence contended that the impugned notices deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is contended by the petitioners that, such view of the Division Bench in Milroc is followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Nagpur, in the case of M/s Paras Stone Industries Vs. Union of India & Ors²W.P. 7718/ 2025- Bombay High Court, Nagpur, and Rite water solutions (India) Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur and Ors³2025-VIL-1378-BOM. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that a similar view is taken by the Kerala, Madras and Karnataka High Courts. In this context, reference is made to the decisions in Titan Company Ltd. vs. JC, GST & Central Excise⁴[(2024) 15 CENTAX 118 (Mad.)]; Bangalore Golf Club vs. AC, Commercial Taxes⁵[WP/16500/2024] - Karnataka HC; Veremax Technologies vs. AC, Central Tax Bengaluru⁶[2024 167 taxmann.com 332] - Karnataka HC; UNO Minda vs. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise⁷[WP/27776/2024] - Madras HC; Chimney Hills Education Society vs. AC, Central Tax⁸[(2024) 24 CENTAX 9 (Kar.)]; Gopi Chand vs. DC, Commercial Taxes (Audit)-1⁹[2025 27 CENTAX 288] - Karnataka HC; Lakshmi Mobiles vs. Joint Commissioner¹⁰[WP/2911/2025] - Kerala HC; Joint Commissioner vs. Laxmi Mobile¹¹[WA/258/2025] - Kerala HC; X.L Interiors vs. DC (Intelligence), SGST Department, Ernakulam¹²[2025: KER:10722] - Kerala HC; Tharayil Medicals vs. The Deputy Commissioner¹³[WA/627/2025] - Kerala HC; R.A. and Co. vs. AC of Central Taxes, Chennai South¹⁴[(2025) 33 CENTAX 14 (Mad.)] - Madras HC; R. Ashaarajaa vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI¹⁵[(2025) 32 CENTAX 453] - Madras HC; Oriental Lotus Hotel Supplies Pvt. Ltd. vs. JC¹⁶[2025-VIL-870-MAD] -Madras HC; S. J Constructions vs. AC (ST), Vishakhapatnam¹⁷[(2025) 35 CENTAX 165]- Andhra Pradesh HC; Pramur Homes And Shelters vs. The Union of India¹⁸[(2025) 37 Centax 324(Kar)] - Karnataka HC.

3. Per contra, the Delhi High Court has taken a different view in the case of Mathur Polymers v. Union of India ¹⁹2025 SCC OnLine Del 6892 and Ambika Traders v. Commr. ²⁰(2025) 148 GSTR 1. Also t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document