THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX vs. M/S. VEREMAX TECHNOLOGIE SERVICES LIMITED

®


1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND


WRIT APPEAL No. 1751 OF 2024 (T-RES)


C/W

WRIT APPEAL No. 1590 OF 2024 (T-RES)

WRIT APPEAL No. 7 OF 2025 (T-RES)

WRIT APPEAL No. 407 OF 2026 (T-RES)
WRIT APPEAL No. 495 OF 2026 (T-RES)

WRIT APPEAL No. 555 OF 2026 (T-RES)


IN WA No. 1751/2024


BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
BENGALURU, NORTH-WEST DIVISION,
ND
2 FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BMTC BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560051.





2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
ANTI-EVASION, BENGALURU,
NORTH WEST DIVISION,
ND
2 FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BMTC BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560051.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING
COUNSEL)

2


AND:

1. M/S CHIMNEY HILLS EDUCATION SOCIETY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SHRI MARI SWAMY G.,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
SY. No.15 , CHIKKASANDRA,
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU URBAN.
KARNATAKA -560090.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.A.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRANAY SHARMA Y., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No.26164/2024 DATED 30/09/2024.

IN WA No. 1590/2024

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
TAX,
DIV-4, GST COMMISSIONERATE,
ND
BENGALURU EAST, 2 FLOOR,
TTMC BMTC BUS STAND,
OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
DOMMALURU, BENGALURU-560 071.
...APPELLANT

(BY SRI M. UNNIKRISHNAN, SENIOR STANDING
COUNSEL)

AND:

1. M/S. VEREMAX TECHNOLOGIE SERVICES
LIMITED,

3


INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR
ACCOUNTS EXECUTIVE,
SRI. VENKATESAN B.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
No.507, HBR LAYOUT,
ST TH
1 STAGE, 4 BLOCK,
OUTER RING ROAD,
BENGALURU URBAN-560 043.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.N. SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT THEREBY
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.15810/2024 DATED 04/09/2024,
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID PETITION.

IN WA No. 7/2025

BETWEEN:

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
(A.E.), BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE,
TH
C.R.BUILDING, 5 FLOOR,
HEAD QUARTERS PREVENTIVE UNIT,
BENGALURU 560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING
COUNSEL)


AND:

1. M/S ALBATROSS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
LLP.,
REP. BY ITS PARTNER,

4


SRI.SHARATH H.P.,
No.45, 100 FEET RING ROAD,
OPP.TO MANDAVI MOTORS,
TH
J.P.NAGAR 4 PHASE,
BENGALURU 560 078.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.K.CHYTHANYA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SANMATHI E. I., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No. 23731/2024 DATED 14.11.2024.

IN WA No. 407/2026

BETWEEN:

1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
MYSORE GST COMMISSIONERATE,
VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,
MYSURU 570011.

2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
TAX,
MYSORE GST COMMISSIONERATE,
S1, S2 VINAYA MARGA,
SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,
MYSURU-570011.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
HPU, MYSURU GST COMMISSIONERATE,
S1, S2 VINAYA MARGA,
SIDDHARTHA NAGAR,
MYSURU-570011.

4. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES
AND CUSTOMS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

5


REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

5. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING
COUNSEL)


AND:

1. M/S PRAMUR HOMES AND SHELTERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH
4 FLOOR, No.37, VENJAY EDIFICE,
JLB ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM,
MYSORE 570 005,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SHRI SRINIVASA MURTHY PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE K. S. MURTHY.
...RESPONDENT
IA.2/26 M/S PAVANPUTRA RESORTS
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
REPRESENTED HEREINBY IT PROPRIETOR
MR. C. P. DIVAKAR
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
PLOT NO.114, 116 AND 117
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA
H N PURA ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

IA.3/26 M/S EDGE SOLUTIONS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

6


NO.91, LAKSHMI NIVASA
GROUND AND 2NDFLOOR
TH
5 CROSS, BULLET KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD
VIDYARANYAPURA
BANGALORE-560 097.

IA.4/26 M/S ASWAN VENTURES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN
PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1932
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
MR. MUZZAKIR HUSSAIN
RD
ADDRESS NO.15/5, 3 FLOOR
PRIME ROSE, ASHOK NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 001
ALSO AT-
R/O 37/23, YELLAPPA CHETTY LAYOUT
ULSOOR ROAD
BEHING MANIPAL CENTRE
BENGALURU-560 075.

IA.5/26 M/S CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDING PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
TH
NO.3/1, 4 FLOOR, JP TECHNO PARK
MILLERS TANK ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 052
REP. HEREIN BY ITS
VICE PRESIDENT-FINANCE AND TAXATION
MR. ANANTH KUDVA M.
…INTERVENING APPLICANTS
(BY SRI BHARAT B RAICHANDANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENING
APPLICANTS IN IA 2/2026 TO IA 5/2026)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET

7


ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No. 33081/2025 (T-RES) DATED
11.12.2025.

IN WA No. 495/2026

BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
BENGALURU NORTH-WEST COMMISSIONERATE,
ND
2 FLOOR, SOUTH WING,
BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051.

2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
TAX,
BENGALURU NORTH-WEST COMMISSIONERATE,
ND
2 FLOOR, SOUTH WING,
BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX,
SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051.

3. THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE,
BELAGAVI ZONAL UNIT,
BELAGAVI - 590 019.
4. THE UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M/S. G.M. AGRO AND BEVERAGES
(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED

8


UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT No.5A1, DOOR No.1939,
HARIHAR, SHIVAMOGA ROAD,
HARIHAR TALUK, BELLUDI,
DAVANGERE - 577 601,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY N., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS
THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No.7470/2025 DATED 17/12/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SAID PETITION.


IN WA No. 555/2026

BETWEEN:

1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND
SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE,
BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT,
No.112, S. P. ENCLAVE,
ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK,
K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560027.

2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,
BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE,

C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING
COUNSEL)

9


AND:
1. M/S S.R.S TRAVELS AND LOGISTICS PRIVATE
LIMITED
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT OF 1956,
No.321, TSP ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KALASIPALAYAM, BANGALORE- 560092,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SMT. MEGHA BANGALORE,
RAJASHEKHARA
D/O LATE K.T.RAJASHEKHARA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OFFICE AT No.321, TSP ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KALASIPALYAM, BENGALURU 560002.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.1,
DGSTO-3, II FLOOR,
BMTC BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560027.

3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT),
SOUTH ZONE, ROOM No.204,
ND
2 FLOOR, VTK-2 BUILDING,
RAJENDRANAGAR, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560047.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P. B. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No.27928/2024 (T-RES) DATED 19.12.2025.

10



THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDER ON 10.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY ,
S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Since facts involved in all the above appeals are
similar and as they raise common questions of law,
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
these appeals are heard together and disposed of by
this common judgment. It is noticed that though
common questions are involved, the financial years
involved are different which would not make any
difference.

2. The above intra-Court appeals are filed
under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961
by the Revenue, respondent before the learned Single

11


Judge questioning order of the learned Single Judge
quashing common/consolidated show cause notices
issued under Section 73 and 74 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the Act’)
covering more than one tax period or financial years.
The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per the
rank they hold before this Court.

3. For convenience, the facts in
W.A.No.1751/2024 is taken up for discussion.

4. The facts in brief are that, the
appellants/Revenue issued a show cause notice under
Section 74 of the Act for the period from July 2017 to
March 2023 alleging defaults committed by the
respondents. In other words, the allegations related to
fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts. It
is also noticed that the material forming the
foundational basis for issuance of the show cause

12


notice was also enclosed, calling upon the respondents
to submit their reply.

5. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, the
respondents approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India basically on the ground that,
under the Act, Sections 73 and 74 are financial year
specific and that show cause notice relating to period
beyond financial year or for multiple financial years is
impermissible. The learned Single Judge held that the
issuance of a common/consolidated show cause notice
for multiple financial years is impermissible and
quashed the show cause notices reserving liberty to
the appellants/Revenue to issue fresh show cause
notices, placing reliance on the order dated 07.08.2024
in M/S. BANGALORE GOLF CLUB VS. ASSISTANT
1
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES of this
Court and the decision of the Madras High Court in

1

W.P.No.16500/2024 DATED 07.08.2024

13


M/S. TITAN COMPANY LIMITED VS. JOINT
2
COMMISSIONER OF GST .

6. The Revenue aggrieved by the said order of
the learned Single Judge, is in appeal.

7. Heard learned standing counsel Sri.Aravind
V. Chavan and learned counsel Sri.M.Unnikrishnan for
appellants/Revenue, learned Additional Advocate
General Shri Aditya Vikram Bhat for State, learned
senior counsel Sri.A.Shankar for learned counsel
Sri.Pranay Sharma.Y, learned senior counsel
Sri.K.K.Chythanya for learned counsel
Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel Sri.M.N.Shankare
Gowda, learned counsel Sri.Bharat B. Raichandani for
caveator/respondent No.1 and learned counsel
Sri.Sandeep Huilgol for intervening applicants in
I.A.No.2/2026 to I.A.No.5/2026 in W.A.No.407/2026,

2

W.P.No.33164/2023

14


learned counsel Sri.Vinay.N., learned counsel
Sri.P.B.Harish for respondents/ assessees. Perused
the appeal papers.

8. Learned senior standing counsel
Sri.Aravind V. Chavan for appellants/Revenue
referring to Sections 73 and 74 of the Act submits that
it would not restrict initiation of proceedings to a
single financial year. Similarly, he submits that the
procedure prescribed for regular assessment under
Chapters IX and XII as well as proceedings under
Chapter XV with regard to demands and recovery is
also not restricted to a single financial year. Further,
learned counsel for Revenue would submit that
Sections 73 and 74 of the Act uses the word “any
period” and when the legislature has used consciously
the expression “any period”, it would be impermissible
to read it as restrictive one, restricting it to a single
financial year.

15


9. It is further submitted that, Sub-Section
(10) of Sections 73 and 74 of the Act protects the
interest of the assessee by prescribing limitation and
use of financial year in Sub-Section (10) cannot be
read as financial year specific to the proceedings
under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act. It is also
submitted that Sections 73 and 74 of the Act would
not prohibit initiation of multiple proceedings within a
financial year also. In the said circumstances, it is
submitted that the contention that show cause notice
issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act must be
confined to a financial year would be contrary to the
provision itself and it would amount to reading and
understanding the provision by adding what is not
there in the provision. However, it is pointed out that
show cause notice issued under Sections 73 and 74 of
the Act would be subject to limitation prescribed under
Sub-Section (10) of Sections 73 and 74 of the Act.

16


Learned counsel for the Revenue places reliance on
the judgment of the Delhi High Court in MATHUR
POLIMERS VS. UNION OF INDIA (2026) 154 GSTR
443 (decided on 26.08.2025) and AMBIKA TRADERS
3
VS. COMMISSIONER to contend that, it is permissible
to issue consolidated show cause notice covering
multiple financial years. It is also submitted that, the
SLPs filed against both the decisions are dismissed.
Learned counsel for the Revenue also placed reliance
on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in M/S. SA AROMATICS PVT. LTD., AND
4
ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS , which
also permitted issuance of combined show cause
notices for multiple financial years under Sections 73
and 74 of the Act.


3

(2025) 33 Centax 189 (Del)
4

Writ Tax.No.7515/2025 dated 20.01.2026

17


10. Learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.Aditya Vikram Bhat supporting the learned counsel
for the Revenue submits that writ petition questioning
show cause notice is not maintainable as the show
cause notice would provide an opportunity to the
respondent/assesses to submit their reply and
thereafter efficacious statutory remedy is provided
under the Act.

11. Further, learned Additional Government
Advocate referring to Rule 56 of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules’)
would submit that accounts are to be maintained for
each works contract. It is also submitted that if
common show cause notice covering various financial
years is issued, at the time of adjudication,
adjudication could be for each financial year,
therefore, issuance of common show cause notice

18


involving several financial years cannot be found fault
with.

12. The Learned AGA relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) Singareni Collieries Company Limited vs.
Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao and Others,
(2013) 8 SCC 789 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 780

(ii) Union of India and Others vs. V.R.
Nanukuttan Nair, (2019) 19 SCC 690 : 2019
SCC OnLine SC 1435

(iii) Murlidhar Madanlal vs. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Bihar and Orissa, (1954) 26 ITR
231 : 1954 SCC OnLine Pat 41 : AIR 1954 Pat
511

(iv) State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Caltex
(India) Ltd., 1965 SCC OnLine SC 168 : (1966)
17 STC 612

(v) Bennett and White (Calgary) Ltd. vs.
Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5, Privy
Council Appeal No. 42 of 1950 (decided on
23.07.1951)

19



(vi) Vallabh Textiles vs. Additional/Joint
Commissioner, CGST Delhi East
Commissionerate and Ors., W.P.(C)
13855/2024

(vii) Kasautii The Jewellers vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax & Ors., W.P.(T) No. 2344 of
2015

(viii) Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) vs.
Minimol Sabu, W.A. No. 238/2025 (Kerala High
Court, Ernakulam)

13. On the contrary, learned counsel
Sri.Bharath appearing for respondent/assessee in
W.A.No.407/2026 submitted that the provisions of the
Act would not permit issuance of common show cause
notice for multiple financial years, as assessment is to
be made for the financial year with independent
returns, liabilities and that too within the period of
limitation prescribed. Further, he submits that annual
returns, along with year-wise re-conciliation of

20


turnover, input tax credit, tax liability, are required to
be furnished. It is also submitted that as per the
scheme of the Act registration, maintenance of
accounts, filing of returns, reconciliation, assessment,
determination and limitation is structured
independently for each financial year. By referring to
Sections 2(11), 44, 62, 34 of the Act and Rule 56 of
the Rules, he submits that scheme framed itself is
financial year specific and any default attracts
consequences under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act.

14. It is further submitted that when the
provisions governing filing of returns and assessment,
whether self-assessment or provisional assessment,
are structured with reference to the financial year, the
consequential proceedings under Sections 73/74 must
necessarily also be with reference to the financial
year. Learned counsel, by referring to Form GST DRC-
01 prescribed under Rules 100 and 142 of the Rules,

21


contends that the prescribed format of the show cause
notice itself refers to the “tax period” and the
“financial year.” It is submitted that the tax period
may be monthly or annual; however, it cannot extend
beyond a financial year. When DRC-01 show cause
notice format indicates and confines the period to a
financial year, issuance of show cause notice for
multiple financial years is impermissible. In that
regard, learned counsel also refers to Form-GST ADT-
01 under Rule 101 of the Rules and Form-GST DRC-07
issued under Rule 100 of the Rules.

15. In support of the aforesaid submissions,
learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
(i) J.K. Steel Ltd vs. Union of India, 1978
(2) E.L.T. 355 (SC).

(ii) Dhandhania Kedia & Co vs. CIT, [1959]
35 ITR 400 (SC.

22


(iii) Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd vs Jayaswals
Neco Limited, 2001 (3) SCC 609.

(iv) Milroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union
of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 465
(Bombay)/[2025] 112 GST 596
(Bombay)/[2026] 104 GSTL 45 (Bombay) [09-
10-2025].

(v) Joint Commissioner (Intelligence &
Enforcement) vs. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories
[2025] 171 taxmann.com 214 (Kerala)/[2025]
108 GST 750 (Kerala)/[2025] 95 GSTL 356
(Kerala) [05-02-2025].

(vi) Tharayil Medicals vs. Deputy
Commissioner, SGST Department, Thrissur
[2025] 173 taxmann.com 867 (Kerala) [08-04-
2025].

(vii) S.J.Constructions vs. Assistant
Commissioner [2025] 178 taxmann.com 570
(Andhra Pradesh)/[2025] 102 GSTL 348
(Andhra Pradesh) [17-09-2025].

(viii) R A and Co vs. Additional Commissioner
of Central Taxes [2025] 176 taxmann.com 731
(Madras)/[2025] 111 GST 104

23


(Madras)/[2025] 101 GSTL 21 (Madras) [21-
07-2025].

(ix) Titan Company Ltd. vs. Joint
Commissioner of GST & Central Excise [2024]
159 taxmann.com 162 (Madras) [18-12-2023].

(x) Rite Water Solutions vs. Joint
commissioner W.P.No.466 of 2025 (Bombay
High Court).

(xi) ICAD School of Learning vs. Union of
India, W.P.No.736/2026 (Bombay High Court).

(xii) M/s. Hakikatrai and Sons, Akola vs.
Union of India 2026 (3) TMI 248.

(xiii) Instakart Services Private Limited vs.
The Additional Commissioner (W.P. No.31551
of 2025).

(xiv) Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala, 2001
(129) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.)"

(xv) UBER India Systems Pvt, Ltd., vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Central Tax &
another, W.P.No.19740 of 2024 (AP).

24


(xvi) Dhanlaxmi Bank Limited vs. State of
Kerala & Others, WP (C) No.15618 of 2025
(Kerala).

(xvii) M/s. Aparna Collection vs. UOI & others.,
W.P. (Civil No.890/2025 (SC).

(xviii) M/s. Aparna Collection vs. UOI & others.,
W.P. (C) No.17077/2025 & CM APPL.
70280/2025 (Delhi).

(xix) Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT, 2004 (165)
E.L.T. 488 (S.C.).

16. Learned senior counsel Sri.K.K.Chythanya
for respondent/assessee in W.A.No.7/2025 submits
that issuance of a show cause notice is a jurisdictional
aspect which shall strictly comply statutory
requirements. It is his specific contention that under
the Scheme of the Act, every action either by the
Revenue or by the assessee is financial year specific.
However, he submits that although Sections 73 and
74 of the Act do not expressly prohibits issuance of a

25


combined notice, referring particularly to the
provisions relating to filing of returns and self-
assessment, the notice under Sections 73 and 74 of
the Act, by necessary implication would suggest each
financial year. In that regard, learned senior counsel
refers to Sections 2(11), 106, 39, 44, 59 and 168A of
the Act.

17. Learned senior counsel would submit that
Section 74 of the Act would deal with cases involving
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts,
whereas Section 73 of the Act deals with other than
cases of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of
facts. However, he submits that Sub-Section (10) of
Sections 73 and 74 of the Act prescribes different
limitation period. By issuing a common show cause
notice for different periods whether it involves fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression, the statutory
limitation applicable to cases falling under Section 73

26


of the Act would effectively stand extended by
application of Section 74 of the Act, which is
impermissible. Learned senior counsel also places
reliance on the circulars prescribing pecuniary limits
for adjudication by the proper officer. It is submitted
that depending on the pecuniary jurisdiction, show
cause notices are to be adjudicated. Issuance of
common or consolidated show cause notice may result
in adjudication of show cause notice by officer having
no pecuniary jurisdiction.

18. It is also contended that in view of the
deeming fiction under sub-section (10) of Section 75,
proceedings are deemed to be concluded if not
adjudicated within the time prescribed under sub-
section (10) of Sections 73 and 74. Such anomalies, it
is submitted, can be avoided if separate show cause
notices are issued for each financial year, which
would, in fact, be advantageous even from the

27


perspective of the Revenue. Learned counsel further
submits that where a consolidated show cause notice
is issued covering multiple years, and some of those
years attract Section 73, such cases may, by legal
fiction, be treated and determined under Section
73(1) of the Act, leading to further inconsistencies.
This anomaly, it is urged, can be obviated if the show
cause notices are confined to individual financial
years.

19. In support of the aforesaid submissions,
learned senior counsel relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Sunil Kumar Sharma, [2024] 469 ITR 197
(Karnataka).

(ii) Needle Industries (India) Ltd and Others
vs. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding
Ltd. and Others, (1981) 3 SCC 333.

28


(iii) R.K. Upadhyaya vs. Shanabhai P. Patel,
[1987] 33 Taxman 229 (SC).

(iv) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Sunil Kumar Sharma, [2024] 168
taxmann.com 77 (SC).

(v) Everest Flavours Ltd. Vs. National
Faceless Assessment Centre, [2024] 166
taxmann.com 621 (Bombay).

(vi) C.C., C.E. and S.T. Bangalore
(Adjudication) and others vs. Northern
Operating Systems Private Limited, (2022) 17
SCC 90.


20. Learned senior counsel Sri.A.Shankar for
respondent/assessee in W.A.No.1751/2024 submits
that circular prescribes pecuniary jurisdiction to each
proper officer and issuance of consolidated show
cause notice would defeat such pecuniary jurisdiction.
It is submitted that when pecuniary jurisdiction is
prescribed to a proper officer, demand in a
consolidated show cause notice would result in shifting

29


of jurisdiction of proper officer. To maintain pecuniary
jurisdiction show cause notice under Sections 73 and
74 of the Act shall be restricted to each financial year.
Further, learned senior counsel would also submit that
when common show cause notice is issued
consolidating various financial years, show cause
notice for some financial years may not be
maintainable or barred by limitation.

21. In support of his submissions, the learned
Senior Counsel relied on the following Judgments:
(i) Milroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union
of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 465
(Bombay)/[2025] 112 GST 596
(Bombay)/[2026] 104 GSTL 45 (Bombay) [09-
10-2025].

(ii) Paras Stone Industries vs. Union of India
[2026] 182 taxmann.com 643 (Bombay) [09-
01-2026].

(iii) Joint Commissioner (Intelligence &
Enforcement) vs. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories

30


[2025] 171 taxmann.com 214 (Kerala)/[2025]
108 GST 750 (Kerala)/[2025] 95 GSTL 356
(Kerala) [05-02-2025].

(iv) Tharayil Medicals vs. Deputy
Commissioner, SGST Department, Thrissur
[2025] 173 taxmann.com 867 (Kerala) [08-04-
2025].

(v) S.J.Constructions vs. Assistant
Commissioner [2025] 178 taxmann.com 570
(Andhra Pradesh)/[2025] 102 GSTL 348
(Andhra Pradesh) [17-09-2025].

(vi) Pramur Homes and Shelters vs. Union of
India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 541 (Karnataka)
[11-12-2025].


(vii) Gopi Chand vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes (Audit) [2025]
171 taxmann.com 586 (Karnataka)/[2025] 109
GST 25 (Karnataka) [22-01-2025].

(viii) R A and Co vs. Additional Commissioner
of Central Taxes [2025] 176 taxmann.com 731
(Madras)/[2025] 111 GST 104 (Madras)/[2025]
101 GSTL 21 (Madras) [21-07-2025].

31

some of the intervening applicants in
W.A.No.407/2026, in addition to the submissions
made on behalf of respondents/assessees submits
that, overall scheme of the Act would suggest

32


issuance of show cause notice under Sections 73 and
74 of the Act for a financial year. Learned counsel
rd
referring to the minutes of 53 meeting of the GST
Council dated 22.06.2024 to introduce Section 74A of
the Act, submits that proceedings are intended to be
for financial year. Further, referring to Section 36 of
the Act, he submits that retention of books of
accounts are with reference to financial year, as such,
all proceedings under the Act shall have to be
construed to be financial year specific. Learned
counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY VS.
5
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, A.P .

23. Learned counsel Sri.E.I.Sanmathi for
respondent/assesses in W.A.No.1590/2025 submits
that the reason for issuance of a show cause notice
shall have nexus with the conditions stipulated under

5

2006 TAXMANN.COM 2313 (SC)

33


Sections 73 and 74 of the Act. If common or
consolidated show cause notices are issued, it may
not satisfy the necessary ingredients of fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Learned
counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS.
6
KURBAN HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA .

24. On hearing the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and on perusal of the entire appeal
papers, the following point would arise for our
consideration:
Whether it would be permissible to
issue consolidated/common show cause
notice under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act
covering multiple financial years or multiple
tax periods?


6

(1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)

34


25. Answer to the above point would be in the
affirmative for the reasons stated hereunder.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Before proceeding to answer the contentions, it
is necessary to analyse the scheme of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly in view
of the submissions advanced by the majority of the
learned counsel that Sections 73 and 74 must be
interpreted in the backdrop of the overall statutory
framework. The relevant provisions of the Act are
extracted herein below for ready reference and
convenience:

35

36

37

38

39

40

41


[(7) Every registered person who
is required to furnish a return under
sub-section (1), other than the person
referred to in the proviso thereto, or
sub-section (3) or sub-section (5),
shall pay to the Government the tax
due as per such return not later than
the last date on which he is required
to furnish such return:
[Provided that every registered
person furnishing return under the
proviso to sub-section (1) shall pay to
the Government, in such form and
manner, and within such time, as may
be prescribed,—
(a) an amount equal to the tax
due taking into account
inward and outward supplies
of goods or services or both,
input tax credit availed, tax
payable and such other
particulars during a month;
or
(b) in lieu of the amount
referred to in clause (a), an
amount determined in such
manner and subject to such
conditions and restrictions as
may be prescribed : ]
Provided further that every
registered person furnishing return
under sub-section (2) shall pay to
the Government, the tax due
taking into account turnover in the
State or Union territory, inward
supplies of goods or services or
both, tax payable, and such other
particulars during a quarter, in

42

43

44


respect of such supplies of goods or services or
both, the tax payable whereon has not been
paid by the supplier, shall be reversed along
with applicable interest, by the said person in
such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that where the said supplier makes
payment of the tax payable in respect of the
aforesaid supplies, the said registered person
may re-avail the amount of credit reversed by
him in such manner as may be prescribed.]"

"
44. Annual return .— [(1)] Every registered
person, other than an Input Service
Distributor, a person paying tax under Section
51 or Section 52, a casual taxable person and
a non-resident taxable person shall furnish an
annual return which may include a self-
certified reconciliation statement, reconciling
the value of supplies declared in the return
furnished for the financial year, with the
audited annual financial statement for every
financial year electronically, within such time
and in such form and in such manner as may
be prescribed:
Provided that the Commissioner may, on
the recommendations of the Council, by
notification, exempt any class of registered
persons from filing annual return under this
section:
Provided further that nothing contained in
this section shall apply to any department of
the Central Government or a State
Government or a local authority, whose books
of account are subject to audit by the
Comptroller and Auditor-General of India or an
auditor appointed for auditing the accounts of
local authorities under any law for the time
being in force.]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58


Act, 1947 (46 of 1947), Consulate or
Embassy of foreign countries or any
other person or class of persons, as
notified under Section 55, entitled to
a refund of tax paid by it on inward
supplies of goods or services or both,
may make an application for such
refund, in such form and manner as
may be prescribed, before the expiry
of [two years] from the last day of
the quarter in which such supply was
received.
(3) Subject to the provisions of
sub-section (10), a registered person
may claim refund of any unutilised
input tax credit at the end of any tax
period:
Provided that no refund of
unutilised input tax credit shall be
allowed in cases other than—
(i) zero rated supplies made
without payment of tax;
(ii) where the credit has
accumulated on account of
rate of tax on inputs being
higher than the rate of tax on
output supplies (other than
nil rated or fully exempt
supplies), except supplies of
goods or services or both as
may be notified by the
Government on the
recommendations of the
Council:
[ ] *
Provided also that no refund of
input tax credit shall be allowed, if the
supplier of goods or services or both
avails of drawback in respect of

59


central tax or claims refund of the
integrated tax paid on such supplies.
(4) The application shall be
accompanied by—
(a) such documentary evidence
as may be prescribed to
establish that a refund is due
to the applicant; and
(b) such documentary or other
evidence (including the
documents referred to in
Section 33) as the applicant
may furnish to establish that
the amount of tax and
interest, if any, paid on such
tax or any other amount paid
in relation to which such
refund is claimed was
collected from, or paid by,
him and the incidence of
such tax and interest had not
been passed on to any other
person:
Provided that where the
amount claimed as refund is
less than two lakh rupees, it
shall not be necessary for the
applicant to furnish any
documentary and other
evidences but he may file a
declaration, based on the
documentary or other
evidences available with him,
certifying that the incidence
of such tax and interest had
not been passed on to any
other person.
(5) If, on receipt of any such
application, the proper officer is

60


satisfied that the whole or part of the
amount claimed as refund is
refundable, he may make an order
accordingly and the amount so
determined shall be credited to the
Fund referred to in Section 57.
(6) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (5), the
proper officer may, in the case of any
claim for refund on account of zero-
rated supply of goods or services or
both [or of unutilised input tax credit
allowed under clause (ii) of the first
proviso to sub-section (3)] made by
registered persons, other than such
category of registered persons as may
be notified by the Government on the
recommendations of the Council,
refund on a provisional basis, ninety
per cent. of the total amount so
claimed, [ ] in such manner and *
subject to such conditions, limitations
and safeguards as may be prescribed
and thereafter make an order under
sub-section (5) for final settlement of
the refund claim after due verification
of documents furnished by the
applicant.
(7) The proper officer shall issue
the order under sub-section (5) within
sixty days from the date of receipt of
application complete in all respects.
(8) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (5), the
refundable amount shall, instead of
being credited to the Fund, be paid to
the applicant, if such amount is
relatable to—

61

62


any other law for the time being in
force, no refund shall be made except
in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section (8).
(10) Where any refund is due [
] to a registered person who has *
defaulted in furnishing any return or
who is required to pay any tax,
interest or penalty, which has not
been stayed by any court, Tribunal or
Appellate Authority by the specified
date, the proper officer may—
(a) withhold payment of refund
due until the said person has
furnished the return or paid
the tax, interest or penalty,
as the case may be;
(b) deduct from the refund due,
any tax, interest, penalty, fee
or any other amount which
the taxable person is liable to
pay but which remains
unpaid under this Act or
under the existing law.
Explanation.—For the purposes of
this sub-section, the expression
“specified date” shall mean the last
date for filing an appeal under this
Act.

(11) Where an order giving rise to a
refund is the subject matter of an appeal
or further proceedings or where any
other proceedings under this Act is
pending and the Commissioner is of the
opinion that grant of such refund is likely
to adversely affect the revenue in the
said appeal or other proceedings on
account of malfeasance or fraud

63


committed, he may, after giving the
taxable person an opportunity of being
heard, withhold the refund till such time
as he may determine.
(12) Where a refund is withheld under
sub-section (11), the taxable person
shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 56, be entitled to
interest at such rate not exceeding six
per cent. as may be notified on the
recommendations of the Council, if as a
result of the appeal or further
proceedings he becomes entitled to
refund.
(13) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this section, the
amount of advance tax deposited by a
casual taxable person or a non-resident
taxable person under sub-section (2) of
Section 27, shall not be refunded unless
such person has, in respect of the entire
period for which the certificate of
registration granted to him had remained
in force, furnished all the returns
required under Section 39.
(14) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this section, no refund
under sub-section (5) or sub-section
(6) [, other than cases where refund of
tax is claimed on account of goods
exported out of India with payment of
tax,] shall be paid to an applicant, if the
amount is less than one thousand
rupees.
[(15) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this section, no refund of
unutilised input tax credit on account of
zero rated supply of goods or of
integrated tax paid on account of zero

64


rated supply of goods shall be allowed
where such zero rated supply of goods is
subjected to export duty.]
Explanation.—For the purposes of this
section,—
(1) “refund” includes refund of tax
paid on zero-rated supplies of goods or
services or both or on inputs or input
services used in making such zero-rated
supplies, or refund of tax on the supply
of goods regarded as deemed exports, or
refund of unutilised input tax credit as
provided under sub-section (3).
(2) “relevant date” means—
(a) in the case of goods exported
out of India where a refund of
tax paid is available in respect
of goods themselves or, as the
case may be, the inputs or input
services used in such goods,—
(i) if the goods are exported by
sea or air, the date on which
the ship or the aircraft in
which such goods are loaded,
leaves India; or
(ii) if the goods are exported by
land, the date on which such
goods pass the frontier; or
(iii) if the goods are exported by
post, the date of despatch of
goods by the Post Office
concerned to a place outside
India;
(b) in the case of supply of goods
regarded as deemed exports
where a refund of tax paid is
available in respect of the
goods, the date on which the

65

66

67

68


or after the issuance of order for final
assessment.
(5) Where the registered person is entitled
to a refund consequent to the order of final
assessment under sub-section (3), subject to
the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 54,
interest shall be paid on such refund as
provided in Section 56."

" 61. Scrutiny of returns .—(1) The proper
officer may scrutinize the return and related
particulars furnished by the registered person
to verify the correctness of the return and
inform him of the discrepancies noticed, if any,
in such manner as may be prescribed and seek
his explanation thereto.
(2) In case the explanation is found
acceptable, the registered person shall be
informed accordingly and no further action
shall be taken in this regard.
(3) In case no satisfactory explanation is
furnished within a period of thirty days of being
informed by the proper officer or such further
period as may be permitted by him or where
the registered person, after accepting the
discrepancies, fails to take the corrective
measure in his return for the month in which
the discrepancy is accepted, the proper officer
may initiate appropriate action including those
under Section 65 or Section 66 or Section 67,
or proceed to determine the tax and other
dues under Section 73 or Section 74 [or
Section 74-A]."

" 62. Assessment of non-filers of returns .—
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in Section 73 or Section 74 [or
Section 74-A], where a registered person fails
to furnish the return under Section 39 or

69


Section 45, even after the service of a notice
under Section 46, the proper officer may
proceed to assess the tax liability of the said
person to the best of his judgement taking into
account all the relevant material which is
available or which he has gathered and issue
an assessment order within a period of five
years from the date specified under Section 44
for furnishing of the annual return for the
financial year to which the tax not paid relates.
(2) Where the registered person furnishes a
valid return within [sixty days] of the service
of the assessment order under sub-section (1),
the said assessment order shall be deemed to
have been withdrawn but the liability for
payment of interest under sub-section (1) of
Section 50 or for payment of late fee under
Section 47 shall continue:
[Provided that where the registered person
fails to furnish a valid return within sixty days
of the service of the assessment order under
sub-section (1), he may furnish the same
within a further period of sixty days on
payment of an additional late fee of one
hundred rupees for each day of delay beyond
sixty days of the service of the said
assessment order and in case he furnishes
valid return within such extended period, the
said assessment order shall be deemed to have
been withdrawn, but the liability to pay interest
under sub-section (1) of Section 50 or to pay
late fee under Section 47 shall continue.]"
" 63. Assessment of unregistered
persons .—Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in Section 73 or Section 74
or Section 74-A], where a taxable person fails
to obtain registration even though liable to do
so or whose registration has been cancelled
under sub-section (2) of Section 29 but who

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77


officer in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(9) Where any goods, being goods
specified under sub-section (8), have
been seized by a proper officer, or
any officer authorised by him under
sub-section (2), he shall prepare an
inventory of such goods in such
manner as may be prescribed.
(10) The provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
relating to search and seizure, shall,
so far as may be, apply to search and
seizure under this section subject to
the modification that sub-section (5)
of Section 165 of the said Code shall
have effect as if for the word
“Magistrate”, wherever it occurs, the
word “Commissioner” were
substituted.
(11) Where the proper officer has
reasons to believe that any person
has evaded or is attempting to evade
the payment of any tax, he may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing,
seize the accounts, registers or
documents of such person produced
before him and shall grant a receipt
for the same, and shall retain the
same for so long as may be necessary
in connection with any proceedings
under this Act or the rules made
thereunder for prosecution.
(12) The Commissioner or an
officer authorised by him may cause
purchase of any goods or services or
both by any person authorised by him
from the business premises of any
taxable person, to check the issue of

78

79


the proper officer may serve a
statement, containing the details of
tax not paid or short paid or
erroneously refunded or input tax
credit wrongly availed or utilised for
such periods other than those covered
under sub-section (1), on the person
chargeable with tax.
(4) The service of such statement
shall be deemed to be service of
notice on such person under sub-
section (1), subject to the condition
that the grounds relied upon for such
tax periods other than those covered
under sub-section (1) are the same as
are mentioned in the earlier notice.
(5) The person chargeable with tax
may, before service of notice under
sub-section (1) or, as the case may
be, the statement under sub-section
(3), pay the amount of tax along with
interest payable thereon under
Section 50 on the basis of his own
ascertainment of such tax or the tax
as ascertained by the proper officer
and inform the proper officer in
writing of such payment.
(6) The proper officer, on receipt of
such information, shall not serve any
notice under sub-section (1) or, as
the case may be, the statement under
sub-section (3), in respect of the tax
so paid or any penalty payable under
the provisions of this Act or the rules
made thereunder.
(7) Where the proper officer is of
the opinion that the amount paid
under sub-section (5) falls short of
the amount actually payable, he shall