A consolidated show cause notice issued under Section 73 covering multiple financial years is legally unsustainable

By | October 13, 2026
A consolidated show cause notice issued under Section 73 covering multiple financial years is legally unsustainable

Issue

  • Whether a single consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 73 covering multiple financial years (2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24) is legally permissible, or whether separate notices for each relevant assessment year are mandatory.

Facts

  • Multiple Financial Years: The case pertains to Financial Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24.
  • Issuance of Consolidated SCN: The first respondent issued a single consolidated Show Cause Notice (Ext.P1) under Section 73 covering all four financial years.
  • Petitioner’s Challenge: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P1, asserting that issuing a single composite notice across multiple years is impermissible in law and that separate notices for each assessment year are mandatory.
  • Precedential Reliance: The petitioner relied on Division Bench judgments that held consolidated proceedings covering multiple tax periods under Section 73 to be legally invalid.

Decision

  • The court held that consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years under Section 73 are legally unsustainable, adhering to established Division Bench principles. [Para 2]
  • The court quashed the consolidated Show Cause Notice (Ext.P1). [Para 3]
  • The court granted liberty to the respondent authority to issue separate, year-wise show cause notices for each relevant assessment year. [Para 3]
  • The court directed that the period from the date of Ext.P1 until the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment be excluded when computing limitation for initiating fresh proceedings. [Para 3]
  • All other legal and factual contentions were kept open. [Para 3]

Key Takeaways

  • Mandatory Year-Wise Notices under Section 73: Tax authorities cannot club multiple financial years into a single consolidated Show Cause Notice under Section 73; separate notices must be issued for each individual assessment year.
  • Quashing with Liberty to Re-issue: When a composite notice is quashed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, revenue authorities retain the liberty to re-initiate proceedings via separate, year-specific notices.
  • Exclusion of Time for Limitation: The period spent during litigation challenging the invalid composite notice is excluded while computing statutory limitation limits for initiating fresh year-wise proceedings.
Would you like me to draft a script or generate a visual outline based on this GST case summary?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Jovin George
v.
Assistant Commissioner
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
WP(C) NO. 33147 OF 2026
SEPTEMBER  28, 2026
Rajesh Nambiar, Adv. for the Petitioner. V. Gireesh Kumar, SC and Gireesh Y., Sr. GP for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 consolidated Show Cause Notice which was issued by the 1st respondent for multiple financial years namely, 2020-2021, 20212022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. 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] 171  108 GST 750/95 GSTL 356 (Kerala)/[2025 KHC OnLine 149] andTharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, SGST Department, Thrissur (Kerala)/[2025 KHC OnLine 467]
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and Sri. V. Girishkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents I find merit 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 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, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Ext.P1 show cause notice, till the date of receipt of the 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.