Facts
M/s North East Petrochemicals challenged the Order-in-Original dated 29 December 2025, by which tax of ₹7,21,64,532, along with applicable interest and penalty, was adjudged for the financial years 2018–19 to 2022–23.
Source reference: p.3, para. 2The petitioner’s principal jurisdictional objection was that the Proper Officer could neither issue a consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years nor pass a consolidated adjudication order for those years.
Source reference: p.3, para. 3The petitioner also raised other grounds on the merits of the adjudication, which the High Court did not examine.
Source reference: p.5, para. 6Issues
1. Whether the Proper Officer had jurisdiction to issue a consolidated show-cause notice under the CGST Act, 2017 for multiple financial years, namely 2018–19 to 2022–23.
Source reference: p.3, para. 32. Whether the Proper Officer had jurisdiction to pass a consolidated Order-in-Original for the same multiple financial years.
Source reference: p.3, para. 33. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, with appropriate protection concerning limitation and interim relief.
Source reference: p.5, paras. 7–8Law Applied
The Court applied Sections 73(1), 73(9), 74(1) and 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and relied on its earlier decision in M/s Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 3798.
Source reference: p.3, para. 4The governing rule was that the CGST Act contains no bar against issuing a consolidated show-cause notice for different financial years under Sections 73(1) or 74(1), or against passing a consolidated adjudication order for different financial years under Sections 73(9) or 74(9).
Source reference: p.3, para. 4The Court further applied Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, recognising the statutory appeal as the appropriate remedy for challenges on the merits of the adjudication.
Source reference: p.5, para. 8(iii)Reasoning
Following the binding jurisdictional reasoning adopted in M/s Tata Projects Limited, the Court held that the Proper Officer was legally empowered to issue a single consolidated show-cause notice and pass a single consolidated order covering the financial years 2018–19 to 2022–23.
Source reference: p.4, para. 5Consequently, the petitioner’s challenge based solely on the alleged impermissibility of consolidation disclosed no jurisdictional error.
Source reference: p.4, para. 5The Court expressly declined to examine the petitioner’s remaining objections concerning the legality or merits of the Order-in-Original, leaving those questions open for consideration in the statutory appeal.
Source reference: p.5, para. 6; p.5, para. 8(ii)Holding
The writ petition was disposed of without interference with the Order-in-Original on the jurisdictional ground raised.
The Court held that the Proper Officer had jurisdiction to issue the consolidated show-cause notice and pass the consolidated Order-in-Original for 2018–19 to 2022–23.
Source reference: p.5, para. 8(i)The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within 30 days from the judgment; if filed within that period, the Appellate Authority was directed to decide it without insisting on limitation.
Source reference: p.5, para. 8(iii)Existing interim protection was directed to continue until the Appellate Authority considered the petitioner’s stay application, subject to timely filing of the appeal.
Source reference: p.6, para. 8(iv)The Appellate Authority remained free to pass appropriate orders on the stay application, and no costs were awarded.
Source reference: p.6–7, paras. 8(v)–(vi)Acts & Sections Cited
3 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20173
Original Court PDF
M/S North East PetrochemicalsvsThe Union Of India And Othrs
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
