Composite GST Show Cause Notices Issued Across Multiple Financial Years Under Section 73 Are Legally Unsustainable

By | September 8, 2026
0 Comment
Composite GST Show Cause Notices Issued Across Multiple Financial Years Under Section 73 Are Legally Unsustainable
Issue
Whether a single composite Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 covering multiple assessment years (2019-20 and 2020-21), along with its consequential summary orders and adjudication proceedings, is legally valid.
Facts
  • Composite SCN Issued: The Revenue issued a single composite Show Cause Notice (SCN) along with its summary covering two distinct financial years (2019-20 and 2020-21) under Section 73.
  • Adjudication Order: Following the composite SCN, the adjudicating authority passed a consolidated adjudication order and issued a corresponding order summary for both periods.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner challenged the legality of issuing a single SCN for multiple financial years and sought quashing of the notice, order, and summaries.
  • Precedental Reliance: The petitioner relied on binding Kerala High Court Division Bench decisions (Lakshmi Mobile Accessories and Tharayil Medicals), which ruled that composite notices covering multiple assessment years are invalid.
Decision
  • In Favor of Assessee: The single composite SCN, its summary, the consequential adjudication order, and the order summary were quashed.
  • Precedent Applied: Adhering to established Division Bench principles, the court held that issuing a single consolidated SCN for multiple years under Section 73 is impermissible.
  • Liberty to Re-initiate: The Revenue was granted liberty to issue separate, year-specific notices, with the period between the impugned order and receipt of the judgment copy excluded for calculating limitation.
Key Takeaways
  • Year-Specific Notices Mandatory: Under Section 73 of the GST Act, the Revenue must issue individual show cause notices for each financial year rather than combining multiple periods into a single notice.
  • Defect Invalidates Consequential Orders: Any adjudication order or summary originating from a flawed composite SCN is legally unsustainable and subject to being quashed.
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
TGS Trading Co.
v.
Superintendent
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
WP(C) NO. 29409 OF 2026
AUGUST  21, 2026
Aji V. Dev, Kiran Ramachandran Nair, Alan Priyadarshi Dev, Smt. Vandana Bhat T.V. and S. Sajeevan, Advs. for the Petitioner. V. Girishkumar, SC for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. 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 2020-202, Ext.P1(a) summary of the said show cause notices, Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P2(a) summary of the order. 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. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories [2025]  108 GST 750/95 GSTL 356 (Kerala)/[2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, SGST Department, Thrissur [2025]   (Kerala)/ [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.
3. 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 Exts.P1, P1(a), P2 and P2(a), granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P2 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.