The CGST Act permits consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 or 74.

The petitioners challenged a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 17.04.2024 issued by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit.

The principal challenge was that the notice consolidated proceedings for four financial years, and that the alleged liability, if any, ought to have been proceeded against under Section 73 rather than Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), making the notice allegedly time-barred.

Although the notice granted 30 days to submit a reply, the petitioners neither replied nor challenged any adjudication order, as no such order had been passed.

The writ petition was filed on 09.05.2025, nearly one year after issuance of the notice.

During the proceedings, the Court restrained coercive action pursuant to the notice until the returnable date.

Whether the Proper Officer could issue a consolidated Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should determine whether the proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 73 rather than Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Whether the petitioners should be granted an opportunity to submit their reply to the notice despite the expiry of the original 30-day period.

The Court applied Sections 73(1), 73(9), 74(1) and 74(9) of the CGST Act.

Section 73 concerns tax not paid, short-paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised without the elements of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression; Section 74 applies where such liability arises by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax.

The Court relied on M/s Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 3798, which held that there is no statutory bar against issuing a consolidated show cause notice or passing a consolidated order for different financial years under Sections 73 or 74.

It also recognised the statutory appellate remedies under Sections 107 and 112 of the CGST Act against orders under Sections 73 and 74.

The Court held that the legality of a consolidated notice had already been settled by Tata Projects Limited, and therefore the petitioners’ challenge on that ground could not succeed.

As to whether Section 73 or Section 74 applied, the Court observed that the determination depended on factual adjudication—particularly whether fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts existed—which could not appropriately be decided in Article 226 proceedings at the show-cause stage.

The petitioners had not submitted their reply, and no adjudication order had yet been passed.

They could therefore raise all factual and legal objections before the Proper Officer and, thereafter, pursue the statutory appellate remedies.

Nevertheless, considering that the proceedings had remained pending and that the interim order had prevented departmental action, the Court restored the petitioners’ opportunity to reply and directed that the relevant period be excluded for computing the limitation period for adjudication.

The Court held that there was no bar to issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.

The petitioners were granted 30 days from the date of judgment to submit their reply and were permitted to raise all contentions except the objection that the consolidated notice was without jurisdiction.

The period from 18.04.2024 until 03.08.2026 was directed to be excluded while computing the limitation period for passing the adjudication order arising from the notice dated 17.04.2024.

No costs were awarded.