Issuance of a Consolidated Show-Cause Notice Clubbing Multiple Financial Years Under Section 74 of CGST Act is Jurisdictionally Invalid.

The Petitioner, State Bank of India, challenged a composite show-cause notice (SCN) dated June 25, 2025, issued by the Additional Commissioner under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017

The SCN clubbed multiple financial years (2018-19 to 2023-24) into a single notice

Despite the Petitioner providing calculation worksheets and 56 inter-branch invoices, the authorities issued an Order-in-Original on December 12, 2025, confirming a total liability (tax, interest, and penalty) of approximately ₹10.97 Crores, alleging that the Petitioner's reply lacked supporting details

The Petitioner moved the High Court via writ jurisdiction, contending that clubbing multiple years was illegal and that the demand for several years was barred by limitation

1. Whether a single, consolidated show-cause notice can be issued for multiple financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act

Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, which provides a five-year limitation period for determining tax short-paid by reason of fraud or suppression

Section 2(106), which defines "tax period" based on the period for which a return is furnished, and Section 2(97) regarding the definition of "return"

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd., which held that assessment years must be split and taxed separately

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer, which established that writ petitions are maintainable despite alternative remedies when the issue is purely legal or the order is without jurisdiction

The court reasoned that under Section 74(10), the limitation period of five years is anchored to the "due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year"

The use of the singular expression "the financial year" signifies that the legislature intended each year to be a separate unit for assessment

By clubbing multiple years into one notice, the Revenue effectively attempted to enlarge the limitation period for earlier years that were otherwise time-barred, which is impermissible under a strict construction of taxing statutes

Since returns are filed monthly or annually for a specific year, there is no statutory basis for a consolidated "tax period" spanning multiple financial years

Regarding maintainability, the court held that since the impugned notice was issued in violation of statutory limitation and procedural requirements, it constituted a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the exercise of writ jurisdiction without requiring the Petitioner to exhaust appellate remedies

The court held the writ petition maintainable as the Revenue’s action was without jurisdiction

The court quashed the impugned SCN dated June 25, 2025, and the consequential Order-in-Original dated December 12, 2025, granting liberty to the Revenue to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with the law