K.U. Mohammed Niyas Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise (Kerala High Court)
Summary: The Kerala High Court, in K.U. Mohammed Niyas Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, WP(C) No. 33350 of 2026, decided on 29 September 2026, held that a composite GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years was legally unsustainable in view of the binding Division Bench decisions of the Kerala High Court. The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Fathima Polymers, challenged Ext.P2, a consolidated show cause notice covering financial years 2022-23 to 2024-25, and Ext.P4, the consequential Order-in-Original. The principal objection was that proceedings relating to different financial years could not be consolidated into a single notice and adjudication order.
The petitioner relied upon 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]. These decisions had addressed the validity of composite GST proceedings involving multiple assessment years. After hearing the parties, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. accepted the petitioner’s submission, observing that the Division Bench had already recorded a finding against the legal sustainability of such consolidated proceedings.
Applying those precedents, the High Court quashed both Ext.P2 and Ext.P4. The Court nevertheless granted the Revenue liberty to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. Thus, the judgment invalidated the composite proceedings without finally determining the underlying tax liability or preventing fresh year-wise proceedings in accordance with law.
The Court further directed that the period beginning from the date of Ext.P4, the Order-in-Original, until the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment would be excluded while computing the limitation period for initiating fresh proceedings. All other contentions of the parties were expressly left open. The judgment therefore provides relief against the composite notice and order while preserving the authorities’ right to proceed separately for each financial year, subject to the Court’s directions.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon:
1. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] (Kerala High Court) — Relied upon for the Division Bench ruling that composite GST notices covering multiple assessment years are legally unsustainable.
2. Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467] (Kerala High Court) — Relied upon for the principle that separate assessment-year proceedings are required and that consolidation can affect statutory limitation and procedural safeguards.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 composite Show Cause Notice which was issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2022-2023 to 2024-2025 and Ext.P4 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.P2 and Ext.P4, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P4 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.
