North East Petrochemicals Vs Union of India And Othrs (Gauhati High Court)
The Gauhati High Court heard a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025, by which tax of Rs. 7,21,64,532/-, along with applicable interest and penalty, was adjudged for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23.
The petitioner raised various issues but confined the writ petition to a jurisdictional challenge, contending that it was impermissible to issue a consolidated Show Cause Notice covering different financial years and equally impermissible to pass a consolidated Order-in-Original for multiple financial years.
The High Court referred to its earlier decision in M/S Tata Projects Limited vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 3798, particularly paragraph 70, wherein it had held that there is no bar to issuing a consolidated show cause notice for different financial years under Section 73(1) or Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court had also held that there is no bar to passing a consolidated order for different financial years under Section 73(9) or Section 74(9) and that the Proper Officer has jurisdiction to issue such consolidated notices and pass consolidated orders.
Relying on the above decision, the High Court held that the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner no longer survived. It concluded that the Proper Officer had the authority and jurisdiction to issue the consolidated Show Cause Notice covering the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23 and to pass the consolidated Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 for those years.
The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the impugned Order-in-Original and had not adjudicated upon its legality or validity apart from the jurisdictional issue decided in the present proceedings.
Following the approach adopted in M/S Tata Projects Limited, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to avail the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It directed that if the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment, the Appellate Authority shall decide it without insisting on the question of limitation.
The Court further directed that the interim protection earlier granted during the pendency of the writ petition would continue until the Appellate Authority considers the stay application, subject to the petitioner filing the appeal within the stipulated period of 30 days. It also clarified that the Appellate Authority would remain free to pass appropriate orders on the stay application without being influenced by the continuation of the interim protection granted by the High Court.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of. The Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the jurisdictional ground, kept all issues on the merits of the Order-in-Original open for consideration in the statutory appeal, granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107, continued interim protection until the stay application is considered, and made no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUWAHATI HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. D. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the Standing Counsel for the CGST assisted by Mr. K. Jain, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 whereby an amount of Rs.7,21,64,532/- has been adjudged as the tax with applicable interest and penalty for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23.
3. The Petitioner has raised various issues. But the jurisdictional fact on which the present writ petition has been filed is on the aspect that it is impermissible to issue a Consolidated Show Cause Notice for different financial years as well as it is also impermissible to pass a Consolidated Order for different financial years.
4. This Court has dealt with the jurisdictional issue so raised in the present proceedings in the case of M/S Tata Projects Limited vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Gau 3798 wherein at Paragraph No.70, this Court observed as herein under:-
“DECISION ON THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS:
70. Accordingly, this Court opines as under:
(a) There is no bar in issuance of a consolidated Show Cause Notice for different financial years together under Section 73(1) or under Section 74(1) of the Act of 2017.
(b) There is no bar in passing of a consolidated order for different financial years together under Section 73(9) or Section 74(9) of the Act of 2017.
(c) The Proper Officer in the respective cases of the three writ petitioners was within his jurisdiction conferred upon in law to issue the consolidated Show Cause Notices as well as pass the consolidated orders against each of the petitioners in the three writ petitions.”
5. Taking into account the above proposition of law as already laid down by this Court in the case of M/S Tata Projects Limited (supra), it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the jurisdictional issue which has been raised by the Petitioner in the present proceedings does not further survive in as much as the Proper Officer had the authority and jurisdiction to issue a Consolidated Show Cause Notice for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23 as well as had also the authority and jurisdiction to pass the Consolidated Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 which was for the financial years, i.e. 2018-19 to 2022-23.
6. This Court further observes and clarifies that this Court has not dealt with the inter se merits as regards the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025.
7. This Court further in the case of M/S Tata Projects Limited (supra) had granted the liberty to the Petitioner therein to avail appellate remedies under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In addition to that, this Court has also provided certain interim protection. It is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner herein would also be entitled to similar directions.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
(i) This Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition in as much as there is no jurisdictional error on the part of the Proper Officer to issue a Consolidated Show Cause Notice for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23 as well as pass the Consolidated Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23.
(ii) This Court clarifies that nothing has been decided on merits as regards the legality and validity of the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025. All such issues raised except what has been decided in the present proceedings is kept open to be challenged in the Statutory Appeal.
(iii) The Petitioner herein is granted the liberty to file appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and if the Petitioner prefers the Appeal in terms with Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within a period of 30 days from the date of the present judgment, the said Appeal be decided by the Appellate Authority without insisting on the question of limitation.
(iv) This Court further takes note of that at the time when the notice was issued in the instant proceedings, certain interim protections were granted to the Petitioner. The said interim protections so granted to the Petitioner shall continue till the consideration of the stay application by the Appellate Authority subject to the Appeal being filed by the Petitioner herein as per the liberty granted hereinabove within a period of 30 days from the date of the present judgment.
(v) This Court further observes that the Appellate Authority would be at liberty to pass such further order or orders upon consideration of the stay application without being influenced by the extension of the interim protections by the present judgment.
(vi) No costs.
