Case Law Details
Veremax Technologie Services Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: In Veremax Technologies Services Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, the Karnataka High Court addressed whether a single Show Cause Notice (SCN) could cover multiple tax periods. The petitioner, Veremax Technologies Services Limited, received a consolidated SCN for the tax periods 2017-18 through 2020-21. The petitioner challenged the SCN, arguing that Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, mandates separate SCNs for each financial year. The petitioner cited legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which held that tax assessments for different periods must be treated independently. The Court sided with the petitioner, stating that issuing a single SCN for multiple tax periods is inconsistent with the CGST Act’s requirements. Section 73(10) of the Act specifies that tax actions must be completed within a specific year and that separate SCNs should be issued for each assessment year. The Court quashed the consolidated SCN, concluding that combining multiple tax periods into one notice violated both the statutory timeline and established legal precedents. However, the Court permitted the tax authorities to issue separate SCNs for each year in compliance with the law.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Veremax Technologies Services Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax [Writ Petition No. 15810 of 2024 dated September 04, 2024] held that single Show Cause Notice (“SCN”) cannot be issued for multiple tax periods because particular action must be completed within a designated year, and that same is consolidated in section 73(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”) that prescribes a specific time limit for furnishing annual return for the Financial Year to which the tax due relates.
Facts:
M/s Veremax Technologies Services Limited (“the Petitioner”) were served SCN dated November 21, 2023 (“the Impugned Notice”) for tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 by the Assistant Commissioner (“the Respondent”).
The Petitioner contended that the Impugned Notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act are flawed due to the improper consolidation of multiple tax periods into a single SCN.
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Notice, the present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner
Issue:
Whether a single SCN can be issue for multiple tax periods?
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 15810 of 2024 held as under:
- Relied on, the case of M/s. Titan Company Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of GST [Writ Petition No. 33164 of 2023 dated December 18, 2023] the Hon’ble Madras High Court further relied on, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd. [AIR 1966 SC 1350] where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment order can be distinctly separated and must be treated independently.
- Noted that, the Respondent erred in issuing a consolidated SCN for multiple assessment years, spanning from 2017-18 to 2020-21.
- Observed that, 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.
- Held that, the Impugned Notices issued by the Respondent are fundamentally flawed. The practice of issuing a single, consolidated SCN for multiple assessment years contravenes the provisions of the CGST Act and established legal precedents.
Our Comments:
Section 73 of the CGST Act governs “Determination of tax, pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24, not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts.” Section 73(10) of the CGST Act states that the proper officer shall issue the order under 73 (9) of the CGST Act within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund.
The GST Council in its 49th meeting recommended that it may not be desirable to extend the timelines in such a manner so that it may lead to bunching of last date of issuance of SCN/order made under Section 73 and 74 of the CGST Act for a number of financial years and they have extended the limitation period specified under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act, separately for each financial year and accordingly, the time limit is extended
Therefore, issuing bunching of SCN is against the spirit of provisions of Section 73 of the CGST Act and the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in Caltex (India) Ltd.’s case (supra) has held that where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment year could be easily split up and dissected and the items can be separated and taxed for different periods. The said law was laid down keeping in mind that each and every Assessment Year will have a separate period of limitation and the limitation will start independently and that is the reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that each assessment year could be easily split up and dissected and the items can be separated and taxed for different periods. The said principle would apply to the present case as well.
The limitation period of three years would be separately applicable for every assessment year and it would vary from one assessment year to another. It is not that it would be carried over or that the limitation would be continuing in nature and the same can be clubbed. The limitation period of three years ends from the date of furnishing of the annual return for the particular financial year.
Similar, judgment was passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Writ Petition No. 16500 of 2024 (T-RES)].
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
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
