Case Law Details
Malabar Trade Links Vs Superintendent (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court, in Malabar Trade Links v. Superintendent, held that a composite show cause notice covering multiple financial years is legally unsustainable. The petitioner had challenged a composite Show Cause Notice (Ext. P1) issued for the financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21, along with the consequential Order-in-Original (Ext. P2). The principal contention was that issuance of a single notice for multiple assessment years had already been held to be impermissible by the Division Bench of the High Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner. After considering the submissions of both parties, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s challenge and noted that the issue stood covered by the earlier binding precedents. Accordingly, the Court quashed both the composite show cause notice and the consequential order, while granting liberty to the authorities to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. The Court further directed that the period from the date of the original notice until receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would be excluded for computing limitation for initiating fresh proceedings, leaving all other contentions of the parties 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, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and Ext.P2 Order-in-Original. 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 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 Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, 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
