Case Law Details
Nisha Raphel Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a composite GST Show Cause Notice issued for six financial years, namely 2018–2019, 2019–2020, 2020–2021, 2021–2022, 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, along with the consequential Order-in-Original and its summary. The petitioner contended that issuance of a single show cause notice covering multiple assessment years was not legally sustainable, relying on earlier Division Bench decisions of the High Court.
After hearing both parties, the Court found merit in the contention and observed that the Division Bench had already held that composite notices covering multiple assessment years were legally unsustainable. Applying the principles laid down in those decisions, the Court held that interference was warranted.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Show Cause Notice, the Order-in-Original and its summary. The respondents were granted liberty to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. The Court further directed that the period from the date of the original Show Cause Notice until the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment shall be excluded while computing the limitation period 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 composite Show Cause Notice which was issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 and Ext.P2 Order-in-Original. Ext.P2(a) is the 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 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 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, 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.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
