T G S Trading Co. Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
SEO Title: Kerala HC Quashes Composite GST Notices for Multiple Financial Years, Allows Fresh Year-wise Proceedings
Summary: The Kerala High Court has quashed a composite GST show cause notice and consequential order covering multiple financial years, holding that the issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years was not legally sustainable in view of the Division Bench decisions 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]. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years.
The Court further directed that the period from the date of Ext.P2 until the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would be excluded while computing the period of limitation for initiating fresh proceedings. All other contentions of the parties were left open. The supplied judgment records that the petition challenged Ext.P1 composite Show Cause Notice, Ext.P1(a) summary, Ext.P2 order and Ext.P2(a) summary relating to multiple financial years.
Analysis:
The principal issue before the Kerala High Court was the legal sustainability of a composite GST proceeding covering multiple financial years. The petitioner relied upon the Division Bench rulings in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories and Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur, in which the issuance of composite proceedings for multiple assessment years had been found legally unsustainable. The Court accepted the submission and held that interference was warranted.
Accordingly, Exts.P1, P1(a), P2 and P2(a) were quashed. The Revenue was nevertheless granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing separate notices for the relevant assessment years. The Court also protected the limitation position by excluding the period from the date of Ext.P2 until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment while computing the limitation period for fresh proceedings.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
1. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149]
2. Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467]
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 composite Show Cause Notice which was issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2019-2020 and 2020-202, Ext.P1(a) summary of the said show cause notices, Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P2(a) summary of the order. 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 [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.
3. In such circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P1, P1(a), P2 and P2(a), granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P2 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.
