Case Law Details
GHV India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) (Kerala High Court)
The writ petition challenged a consolidated Show Cause Notice (Ext.P1) covering multiple financial years from 2018–2019 to 2022–2023 and a consequent order (Ext.P3). The petitioner argued that issuing a composite notice and order for multiple assessment years was legally unsustainable, relying on earlier decisions of the Kerala High Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner. After hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention, noting that a Division Bench had already held such composite proceedings to be invalid. Applying the same principle, the Court set aside Ext.P1 and Ext.P3. However, it granted liberty to the authorities to issue separate notices for each relevant assessment year. The Court also directed that the period from the date of Ext.P3 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would be excluded for limitation purposes in any fresh proceedings. All other contentions were left open.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 consolidated Show Cause Notice which was issued by the 1st respondent for multiple financial years namely, 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 and Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice and order 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 (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467].
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.
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 and Ext.P3, granting liberty to the respondents to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P3 order till the date of receipt of a 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.
Author Bio
