Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10605

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15618 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 3332 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 4442 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 5020 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 5103 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 5604 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 5708 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 6270 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 6732 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 8039 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 8283 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 8585 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 8637 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 8880 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 8882 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 9720 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 9965 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10092 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10122 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10131 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10164 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10210 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10682 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 10694 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 11251 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 11335 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 11396 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 11516 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 11676 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 12422 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 12504 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 13067 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 13261 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 13290 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 13773 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 13913 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14516 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14625 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14661 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14669 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14757 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14871 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14961 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 15178 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 15357 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 15691 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 16352 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17091 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17159 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17167 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17320 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17369 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17374 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17386 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17462 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 17810 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 18102 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 19420 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 19684 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 19838 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 20034 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 20140 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 20141 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 20535 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 21599 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 23985 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 24609 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 24873 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 24881 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 24897 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 25000 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 25010 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 25041 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 25731 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 25872 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26003 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26016 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26039 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26108 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26162 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26236 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26303 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26649 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26832 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26876 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26886 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 26947 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27192 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27303 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27627 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27628 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27670 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27855 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 27898 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 28368 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 29858 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 30238 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 30250 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 30257 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 30646 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 31252 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 31255 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 31461 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 31820 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 32680 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 32785 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 33408 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 33760 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 34141 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36084 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36100 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36169 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37031 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 39107 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 41355 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 42558 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 44492 OF 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS, SRI.ISAAC THOMAS, SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS, SHRI.JOHN VITHAYATHIL, SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
For the Respondents: SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. P.T.DINESH, SC

Composite notices under the CGST/SGST Act for multiple assessment years are unsustainable; individual notices must be issued to uphold fairness for taxpayers.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 73 and 74 - Validity of composite notices - The court quashed the composite notices issued for multiple assessment years, ruling that the issuance of such notices is unsustainable and prejudicial to taxpayers, reiterating findings from referenced cases that individual notices for each year promote fairness in tax proceedings. The requirement to issue separate notices arises from the legal definitions and time frames for adjudication specified in the Act. (Paras 1-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners contest composite notices issued under the CGST/SGST Act for multiple financial years, arguing their unfair and prejudicial nature based on previous judgments prohibiting such actions. The respondents maintain that these notices are permitted by law.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that consolidated notices undermine the taxpayers’ ability to receive fair hearings, as the adjudication periods vary by year. A composite approach can extend tax liabilities excessively and complicate the appeal processes unnecessarily.

Issues: The key legal question is whether the officers' issuance of composite notices under CGST for various assessment years is permissible. The court addressed the implications of issuing such notices on taxpayer rights and the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the law mandates the issuance of individual notices for each year, ensuring fair opportunity for the assessment and defense against tax claims, maintaining adherence to the principles of fair taxation outlined in previous judicial decisions.

Result: Writ petitions disposed with quashing of the impugned composite notices and directions to issue separate notices for each relevant assessment year.

Table of Content
1. introduction to the case and its background regarding notices issuance. (Para 1)
2. arguments presented by both petitioners and respondents regarding the nature of composite notices. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of the prejudices caused to taxpayers due to composite notices. (Para 8)
4. discussion on the binding nature of previous judgments and implications for future cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.15618/2025, 3332/2025, 4442/2025, 5020/2025, 5103/2025, 5604/2025, 5708/2025, 6270/2025, 6732/2025, 8039/2025, 8283/2025, 8585/2025, 8637/2025, 8880/2025, 8882/2025, 9720/2025, 9965/2025, 10092/2025, 10122/2025, 10131/2025, 10164/2025, 10210/2025, 10682/2025, 10694/2025, 11251/2025, 11335/2025, 11396/2025, 11516/2025, 11676/2025, 12422/2025, 12504/2025, 13067/2025, 13261/2025, 13290/2025, 13773/2025, 13913/2025, 14516/2025, 14625/2025, 14661/2025, 14669/2025, 14757/2025, 14871/2025, 14961/2025, 15178/2025, 15357/2025, 15691/2025, 16352/2025, 17091/2025, 17159/2025, 17167/2025, 17320/2025, 17369/2025, 17374/2025, 17386/2025, 17462/2025, 17810/2025, 18102/2025, 19420/2025, 19684/2025, 19838/2025, 20034/2025, 20140/2025, 20141/2025, 20535/2025, 21599/2025, 23985/2025, 24609/2025, 24873/2025, 24881/2025, 24897/2025, 25000/2025, 25010/2025, 25041/2025, 25731/2025, 25872/2025, 26003/2025, 26016/2025, 26039/2025, 26108/2025, 26162/2025, 26236/2025, 26303/2025, 26649/2025, 26832/2025, 26876/2025, 26886/2025, 26947/2025, 27192/2025, 27303/2025, 27627/2025, 27628/2025, 27670/2025, 27855/2025, 27898/2025, 28368/2025, 29858/2025, 30238/2025, 30250/2025, 30257/2025, 30646/2025, 31252/2025, 31255/2025, 31461/2025, 31820/2025, 32680/2025, 32785/2025, 33408/2025, 33760/2025, 34141/2025, 36084/2025, 36100/2025, 36169/2025, 37031/2025, 39107/2024, 41355/2024, 42558/2024, 44492/2024]...

The common issue that arises in all these writ petitions is relating to the sustainability of the notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 in the form of a composite notice for multiple assessment years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that the issues raised regarding the composite notice and order is already decided by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Lakshmi Mobile Accessories v. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) [ 2025 KHC OnLine 149 ] and Tharayil Medicals v. The Deputy Commissioner [2025 KHC Online 467]. However, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the State of Kerala as well as the Senior Panel counsel appearing for the Central Government is that, there is no prohibition in the Act, against the issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years and the decisions rendered by the Delhi High Court upholding the validity of such notices were already upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court by dismissing the SLPs filed against the said decisions. Therefore, in the light of the above, no interference is warranted in the impugned notices issued for multiple years.

2. As observed above, the only question that arises for consideration is with regard to the competence of the officers concerned for issuing a composite notice under the provisions of the CGST Act for multiple assessment years. In fact, in Lakshmi Mobile (supra), this Court elaborately considered the aforesaid question, after referring to the scheme of the CGST Act, by specifically referring to various provisions in the said Act and came to a definite conclusion that such notices are unsustainable in view of the fact that, it causes serious prejudice to the tax payers for various reasons. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Judgment rendered in Lakshmi Mobile (supra) are relevant in this regards, which reads as follows:

7. It is clear from the said statutory provisions that the power of the proper officer under Section 74 (1) is to determine whether any of the factors leading to tax evasion exist in relation to an assessee during any financial/assessment year and initiate proceedings un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10605

Composite notices under the CGST/SGST Act for multiple assessment years are unsustainable; individual notices must be issued to uphold fairness for taxpayers.

Cases Referred (1)