Case Law Details
Creators Constructions A Partnership Firm Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Tax And Central Excise (Kerala High Court)
The petitioner challenged a consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) and an Order-in-Original issued under GST covering multiple financial years from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The principal contention was that a composite notice and order spanning several assessment years were legally unsustainable in light of earlier decisions of the Kerala High Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division-IV.
After hearing both sides, the Kerala High Court found merit in the petitioner’s contention. The Court noted that the Division Bench, in the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, had already held that issuance of a consolidated notice and order covering multiple assessment years was not legally sustainable.
Following the principles laid down in those judgments, the Court quashed the consolidated Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original. However, liberty was granted to the tax authorities to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years.
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 and Ext.P4 Order in original, which was issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2018-2019 to 2022-2023. 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 12025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, Audit Division – IV 12025 VIL 356 KER]
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 consolidated Show Cause Notice and Ext.P4 Order in original, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of issuance of Show Cause notice till the date of receipt of 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
