Karnataka HC Quashed GST SCN as Multiple Years Were Clubbed

Veremax Technologie Services Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court)

The Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 03.05.2024 and an order dated 21.11.2023 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21. The petitioner contended that the respondent had improperly consolidated multiple assessment years into a single show cause notice. It was argued that Section 73 requires action to be taken separately for each assessment year, with the limitation period of three years applying independently to each year. According to the petitioner, clubbing several tax periods into one notice was impermissible and separate notices should have been issued under Section 73(1).

The Court examined the scope of Section 73, including Section 73(10), which prescribes specific timelines linked to the due date for furnishing the annual return of the relevant financial year. Reliance was placed on a Madras High Court judgment that followed a Supreme Court decision holding that assessments relating to different years must be treated as distinct and separable. Applying these principles, the Court held that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple assessment years. Such consolidation was found to be contrary to the CGST Act and established legal precedent. Consequently, the Court held the impugned show cause notice to be fundamentally flawed and quashed it. However, it clarified that the respondent is not barred from issuing separate show cause notices for each assessment year in accordance with Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

In this petition, petitioner challenges the impugned show cause notice dated 03.05.2024 at Annexure – D and the order dated 21.11.2023 at Annexure – B issued by the respondent for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. The petitioner contends that these notices, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, are flawed due to the improper consolidation of multiple tax periods into a single show cause notice.

2. The petitioner’s primary argument is that the respondent cannot issue a common show cause notice by grouping the tax periods from 2017-18 to 2020-21. The petitioner asserts that under Section 73 of the CGST Act, a specific action must be completed within the relevant year, and the limitation period of three years applies separately to each assessment year. Consequently, the petitioner contends that clubbing multiple tax periods in a single notice is impermissible, and separate notices should have been issued for each assessment year under sub-Section (1) of Section 73.

3. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Titan Company Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of GST¹. The Madras High Court, while addressing a similar issue, relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others vs. Caltex (India) Ltd.,². The Hon’ble Apex Court held that where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment order can be distinctly separated and must be treated independently.

4. This Court has reviewed the judgment of the Madras High Court and the scope of inquiry under Section 73 of the CGST Act. Based on the established legal principles and the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years, spanning from 2017-18 to 2020-21.

5. Section 73(10) of the CGST Act mandates a specific time limit from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax due relates. The law stipulates that particular actions must be completed within a designated year, and such actions should be executed in accordance with the law’s provisions. The principles enunciated in the judgment cited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are directly applicable to the present case.

6. For the reasons aforementioned, this Court concludes that the show cause notices issued by the respondent are fundamentally flawed. The practice of issuing a single, consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years contravenes the provisions of the CGST Act and established legal precedents.

7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is

ii. The impugned show cause notice dated 03.05.2024 (Annexure-D) issued by the respondent for the tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020­21 are hereby quashed;

(iii) This order, however, does not preclude the respondent from issuing separate show cause notices for each assessment year in compliance with Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Notes:

¹ W.P.No.33164 of 2023

² AIR 1966 SC 1350