IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
N.T. PAUL AND COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38377 OF 2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of composite show cause notice. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's agreement with sustainability issues. (Para 2) |
| 3. final ruling about issuance of separate notices. (Para 3) |
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 consolidated Show Cause Notice which was issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2018-2019, 2019- 2020 and 2020-2021. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years was found to be not legally sustainable as per the decision rendered by this Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division -
IV [2025 VIL 356 KER]
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find merits in the said submission, in view of the fact that, such a finding was indeed entered into by the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions referred to above.
3. In such circumstances,, in the light principles laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P1, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of issuance of composite notice i.e., 26.12.2023 till the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for initiating fresh proceeding. All the other contentions of the parties are left open.
It is seen from Ext.P2 that, apart from the discrepancy relating to issuance of composite notice for multiple assessment years, the petitioner has also sought the benefit of Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act , in view of the fact that, in the impugned assessment order the input tax credit claimed by the petitioner was declined on the reason that, the petitioner filed returns after the date prescribed under Sec.16(4) of the CGST Act . However, it is discernible from Ext.P2 that, as far as the returns for the months of January 2019 to March 2020 are concerned, the petitioner had submitted the returns before the cut off date contemplated under Sec.16(5) of the CGST Act , which is 30.11.2021. Therefore, it is further ordered that, in case fresh notices are being issued, the benefit under Sec.16(5) of CGST Act , shall be extended to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the same.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.