Case Law Details
IVL Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Vs Additional Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Haldia Comm. And Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
Sub: Whether one single SCN for multiple years can be issued under the GST Law?
An interesting question interalia arose before Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in this case where combined show cause notice for financial years 2018-19 to 2021-22 was issued and the petitioner relied on several decisions of High courts across the country to argue that the same was not permissible.
In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments M/s. Milroc Good Earth Developers, Mariposa Beach Grove v. Union of India reported in 2025(10) TMI 867- Bombay High Court, S. J. Constructions, Suma Infra, M/s. SKS Traders, Bhaarat Scrap Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner and Others reported in 2025 (9) TMI 1215- Andhra Pradesh High Court, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2025) 35 Centax 86 (Gau) and Goverdhandham Estate Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 25 Centax 400 (Raj.).
The Respondent department argued that clubbing of SCNs is permissible under the law.
He relies on Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta versus Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST, Delhi North reported in 2025 SCCOnLine Del6913 to support his argument. The respondent requested for time to go through the judgements which were cited by the petitioner in its contention.
On these facts the Ld Judge posted the matter to 13th November 2025 while directing the Adjudicating authority to post pone the hearing of the SCN after 13th November 2025 in view of the same having been fixed on 7th November 2025.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition assails a notice to show-cause cum demand under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, dated June 24, 2025 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Haldia Commissionerate.
2. Majumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned notice is not sustainable on at least two grounds. It is submitted that the said notice has been issued after clubbing four financial years, i.e., financial year 2018-2019 to 2021-2022which is impermissible in law. The second ground to assail the said notice is that the same has been issued without conducting the enquiry/scrutiny in terms of Section 61 of the said Act of 2017 read with Rule 99 of the CGST Rules, 2017. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments M/s. Milroc Good Earth Developers, Mariposa Beach Grove v. Union of India reported in 2025(10) TMI 867- Bombay High Court, S. J. Constructions, Suma Infra, M/s. SKS Taders, Bhaarat Scrap Traders v. The Assistant Commissioner and Others reported in 2025 (9) TMI 1215- Andhra Pradesh High Court, Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of Indiareported in (2025) 35 Centax 86 (Gau)and Goverdhandham Estate Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Rajasthan reported in (2025) 25 Centax 400 (Raj.).
3. Mr. Kundalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents/CGST Authorities submits that clubbing of financial years is permissible under law and that bunching of several years would not invalidate a show-cause notice. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the impugned notice has been issued on the basis of information provided by the Director General of Audit (Central), Kolkata. It is further submitted that, in cases falling under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, scrutiny or enquiry required under Section 61 of the said Act is not always necessary and that a show-cause notice can be issued without conducting such enquiry upon receiving appropriate information.
4. He relies on Ambika Traders Through Proprietor Gaurav Gupta versus Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST, Delhi North reported in 2025 SCCOnLine Del6913 to support his argument.
5. Kundalia seeks time to go through the other judgments cited by Mr. Majumder and make further submissions.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners that hearing in respect of the show-cause notice is fixed tomorrow i.e. on November 07, 2025.
7. Since this Court is hearing this writ petition and the hearing has not been concluded today, the respondent-CGST Authority who is to conduct hearing tomorrow i.e, on November 07, 2025, is requested to postpone the said hearing to a date later than the date on which the instant writ petition is made returnable.
8. List this writ petition for further consideration on November 13, 2025 under the same heading.
Author Bio
