Case Law Details
S.K. Metals Vs Additional Commissioner (Adjudication) & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the financial years 2018-19 to 2023-24 through a single show cause notice. The petitioners also challenged the adjudication order passed collectively for all the years covered by the notice.
The petitioners contended that issues such as limitation, cross-examination, and the availability of benefits from one year to another require separate examination for each assessment year. It was argued that the issuance of a common notice for multiple years was itself bad in law. Reliance was placed on interim orders passed by the Rajasthan High Court in M/s Shree Balaji Industries Laxminarayanpuri vs. The Additional Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors. and M/s Meridean Overseas Education Consultants Private Limited vs. Union of India, where similar notices covering multiple years were found prima facie erroneous and the petitioners were granted protection.
The Court issued notice to the respondents. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 accepted notice, and service was treated as complete. The Court directed that a reply to the writ petition be filed within four weeks and ordered that the matter be listed thereafter.
As an interim measure, the Court stayed the effect and operation of the adjudication order dated 12.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act pending further consideration of the matter.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. It is stated that the show cause notice under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been issued for the years 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 through a single show cause notice and adjudicatory order has also been passed for all the years together.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue of limitation, cross-examination and the benefit from one year to another, are required to be examined and common notice for various years itself is bad in law.
3. Learned Senior Counsel also relies on the interim orders passed by this Court in the cases of “M/s Shree Balaji Industries Laxminarayanpuri vs. The Additional ommissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Ors.” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7306/2025) and “M/s Meridean Overseas Education Consultants Private Limited vs. Union of India” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15990/2025), where such notices for various years were found prima facie to be erroneous and the concerned petitioners were protected.
4. Issue notice to respondents.
5. Mr. Vedant Agrawal along with Mr. Rajat Sharma, learned counsels accept notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3.
6. Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.
7. Therefore, service is treated as complete.
8. Reply to the writ petition be filed. The same may be filed within four weeks.
9. List this case after four weeks.
10. Meanwhile, the effect and operation of the adjudication order dated 12.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of CGST Act shall remain stayed.
Author Bio
