Premier Electro Coats Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (I & E) (Kerala High Court)
Summary: Kerala High Court held that a consolidated GST show cause notice and consequential order covering multiple financial years were not legally sustainable. The petitioner challenged Ext.P11 consolidated Show Cause Notice, Ext.P12 summary of notice and Ext.P18 Order-in-Original relating to financial years 2017-18 to 2022-23. It contended that issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years was impermissible 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 found merit in the submission, observing that the Division Bench had indeed entered such a finding in the cited decisions. Accordingly, Exts.P11, P12 and P18 were quashed. The respondents were, however, granted liberty to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. For limitation purposes, the Court directed exclusion of the period from the date of Ext.P11 notice until the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment while computing the period for initiating fresh proceedings. All other contentions of the parties were left open.
Cases Discussed
1. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] — relied upon for the principle that a composite GST notice covering multiple assessment years is not legally sustainable.
2. Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467] — relied upon on the same issue of composite proceedings covering multiple assessment years.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P11 consolidated Show Cause Notice, Ext.P12 summary of notice and Ext.P18 Order in original for multiple financial years namely, 2017-18 to 2022-23. 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 Government Pleader for the respondents, I find merit 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 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.P11, P12 and P18, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P11 notice, till the date of receipt of the 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.
