Consolidated Show Cause Notices and Orders Across Multiple

Consolidated Show Cause Notices and Orders Across Multiple Tax Years Are Legally Valid Under GST

Issue

Whether a Proper Officer has the statutory authority and jurisdiction under Section 73 to issue a consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) and pass a single consolidated Order-in-Original (OIO) covering multiple financial years (2018-19 to 2022-23).

Facts

Assessee Status: The petitioner is a registered taxpayer against whom adjudication proceedings were initiated under Section 73 of the GST Act.
Consolidated Proceedings: The Proper Officer issued a single consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) covering multiple tax periods spanning financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23.
Adjudication Order: Following the SCN, the Proper Officer passed a consolidated Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 29.12.2025 confirming tax demands along with applicable interest and penalties for the covered periods.
Writ Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the jurisdiction and authority of the Proper Officer to issue a consolidated SCN and pass a single consolidated order across multiple financial years.

Decision

The High Court relied on the precedent set in Tata Projects Ltd. v. Union of India (Gauhati).
It held that the Proper Officer possesses the legal authority and jurisdiction under Section 73 to issue a single consolidated SCN and pass a consolidated OIO for multiple tax years (2018-19 to 2022-23).
Finding no jurisdictional error, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition on merits.
The Court kept the merits of the demand open for appellate review, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 within the prescribed timeframe, with interim protection extended until the Appellate Authority considers the stay application.
The issue was decided in favour of the revenue.

Key Takeaways

Jurisdictional Validity of Consolidated Notices: Section 73 does not inherently prohibit a Proper Officer from consolidating claims across multiple financial years into a single Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original.
High Court Precedential Divergence: While certain High Courts have set aside composite orders for multiple periods, rulings like Tata Projects Ltd. recognize the Revenue’s jurisdiction to issue consolidated notices, requiring taxpayers to challenge factual merits through statutory appeals rather than writs.
Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies: When an administrative order does not suffer from a fundamental jurisdictional defect, writ courts will direct taxpayers to pursue statutory appellate remedies under Section 107.

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

North East Petrochemicals

Union of India

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

WP(C) No. 2884 of 2026

JULY 17, 2026

D. Saraf, Adv. for the Petitioner. S. C. Keyal, Sr. Adv. and K. Jain, Adv. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. 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 Tata Projects Ltd. v. Union of India (Gauhati)/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 Tata Projects Ltd. (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 Tata Projects Ltd. (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.