Case Law Details
Banasura Eco Resorts Private Limited Vs Intelligence Officer-Intelligence Unit-1 (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition challenging a consolidated Show Cause Notice (Ext.P1) and its summary (Ext.P2) issued under Section 73 of the GST law covering multiple financial years from 2019-2020 to 2023-2024. The petitioner contended that a composite notice spanning several assessment years was legally unsustainable, relying on earlier decisions of the Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories and Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur. After hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s submissions, noting that the Division Bench had already held that issuance of a single notice covering multiple assessment years was not legally permissible. Applying the principles laid down in those judgments, the Court quashed Ext.P1 and Ext.P2. However, it granted liberty to the respondents to issue separate notices for each relevant assessment year in accordance with law. The Court further directed that the period from the date of Ext.P1 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would be excluded while computing limitation for initiating fresh proceedings. All other contentions of the parties 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 respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2019-2020 to 2023-2024. Ext.P2 is the summary of the showcause notice. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice 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 (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur (2025 KHC OnLine 4671.
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.P2, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P1 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
