Ekta Enterprises Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The Himachal Pradesh High Court considered a petition challenging a composite intimation of tax liability in Form DRC-01A under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and a subsequent show cause notice in Form DRC-01 under Section 74(1), covering financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24.
The petitioner contended that under Section 2(106) of the CGST Act, “tax period” means the period for which the return is required to be furnished. Since returns are filed yearly, the petitioner argued that demands for multiple financial years could not be clubbed in composite DRC-01A or DRC-01 proceedings. It was further submitted that the reply filed to the DRC-01A intimation had not been considered before issuance of the DRC-01 notice.
The learned Advocate General submitted that there was no bar on issuing a composite notice covering different financial years where the issues and subject matter were the same. However, the petitioner maintained that even on this proposition, composite proceedings were not maintainable in the present case because the subject matters for the different financial years were different. Reliance was placed on the judgments dated 09.10.2025 in Commissioner Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. and M/s Micro Good Earth Developers vs. Union of India & ors.
The High Court noted that it was undisputed that the subject matters for the financial years involved were different. Without examining the merits of the underlying tax liability, the Court held that separate intimations and, where necessary after considering the responses, separate DRC-01 show cause notices were to be issued.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the DRC-01A intimation dated 20.06.2024 and DRC-01 show cause notice dated 05.08.2024, along with all consequential orders issued pursuant thereto. The respondents were granted liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law on or before 15.12.2026, if required, and thereafter proceed under the relevant provisions.
The Court further directed the petitioner to participate in proceedings as required by law. It also accepted the request concerning limitation and observed that limitation would not prevent the authority from initiating proceedings and passing an appropriate order, but the same was to be done within a reasonable period and not beyond 31.03.2026.
The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. (Supreme Court of India), C.A. No(s). 2042-2047/2015
- M/s Micro Good Earth Developers vs. Union of India & ors. (High Court of Bombay at Goa), CWP No. 2203/2025
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the composite intimation of tax liability communicated to the petitioner for the financial years 2017-18 to 2023-24 vide communication dated 20.6.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued, in form DRC-01A, under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act”) as well as for issuing show cause notice dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), in form DRC-01, under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act without considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the intimation.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in Section 2(106) of the CGST Act, “tax period” means, the period for which the return is required to be furnished. Returns are filed on yearly basis and, therefore, composite intimation in form DRC-01A or composite Notice in form DRC-01 cannot be issued by clubbing demand for multiple financial years and, therefore, prayer has been made to quash intimation issued in form DRC-01A as well as show cause notice in form DRC-01.
3. Learned Advocate General submits that there is no bar in issuing composite notice for various financial years by clubbing the issue(s), where issue and subject matter involved in different financial years are one and the same and competent authority was and is having jurisdiction to issue composite notice by clubbing the same issue(s) and subject matter of different financial years under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without conceding, however for the arguments’ sake, even if plea of learned Advocate General is considered to be correct, then also in the present case, for different subject matters involved in various financial years in present case, composite intimation and show cause notice are not maintainable.
5. For justifying the plea, he has placed reliance upon the judgment, dated 9.10.2025, passed by the Apex Court in C.A. No(s). 2042-2047/2015, titled as Commissioner Trade and Tax, Delhi vs. M/s Shanti Kiran India (P) Ltd. and judgment dated 09.10.2025, passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in CWP No. 2203/2025, titled as M/s Micro Good Earth Developers vs. Union of India & ors.
6. It has been further submitted that the reply to the intimation DRC-01A has also not been considered at the time of issuance of DRC-01.
7. Learned Advocate General has not disputed the aforesaid contention but has submitted that limitation period for decision to be taken by the Competent Authority with respect to Show Cause Notice issued under DRC-01 was till 31.12.2025 and as no reply to Show Cause Notice was filed by the petitioner, the Competent Authority has also passed appropriate orders by adjudicating Show Cause Notice DRC-01 and, therefore, he has prayed for liberty to the authority to initiate proceedings de novo with observations that limitation period for adjudicating matter and passing appropriate order shall not come in the way of the authority concerned.
8. Without going into the merits of the case and subject matter of Intimation, DRC-01A as well as Show Cause Notice DRC-01, in view of undisputed plea that subject matters of the financial years involved in the present case are different and therefore, separate Intimations and if necessitated so after considering the response separate Show Cause Notices DRC-01 are to be issued, Intimation dated 20.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) and Show Cause Notice dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-2) are quashed and set aside along with all consequential orders issued in pursuance thereto, but with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law on or before 15.12026, if so required and thereafter proceed further as per relevant provisions of law.
9. Needless to say, the petitioner shall participate in the proceedings as required under the law, failing which Competent Authority shall be at liberty to proceed further in absence of the petitioner.
10. In the given facts and circumstances prayer of the learned Advocate General is accepted and accordingly, it is observed that for pendency of the present petition and for not filing response to Show Cause Notice (Annexure P-2) within prescribed time by the petitioner, limitation period shall not come in the way of the authority concerned for initiating process and passing appropriate order in the matter either way, however the same shall be done within a reasonable period, but not beyond 31.3.2026.
11. The petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
