Composite GST SCNs for Multiple Years Invalid | HC

Case Details: Accountants Service Society vs. Union of India - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 112 (Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
• Smt. Sneha Mariya James, Smt.Vydehi P., Sukumar Nainan Oommen & Sherry Samuel Oommen, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• P. R. Sreejith, Adv. & K. Arjun Venugopal, CGC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, who were registered persons under the CGST Act and the Kerala GST Act, through show cause notices issued under sections 73 and 74 covering multiple financial or assessment years by way of a single composite notice. In certain instances, the proper officer also passed consolidated adjudication orders on the basis of such notices. The petitioners challenged the competence of the proper officer to issue composite notices and pass orders covering multiple years, contending that the statutory scheme required separate proceedings for each year. It was further submitted that consolidation caused prejudice in relation to limitation and pre-deposit requirements since the period for initiation and completion of proceedings operated independently for each year. The matter was accordingly placed before the Kerala High Court.

High Court Held

The Kerala High Court held that the statutory framework of sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act did not permit the issuance of composite show cause notices or adjudication orders covering multiple years. The Court observed that the limitation for initiation and completion of proceedings was determined with reference to the due date of the annual return for each year, and therefore, proceedings had to be undertaken year-wise. It was held that the consolidation of proceedings could cause serious prejudice as it curtailed the adjudication period available for later years and increased the burden of pre-deposit by leading to a consolidated order. The Court further clarified that non-speaking dismissal of special leave petitions against a contrary view did not constitute binding precedent. Accordingly, the impugned composite notices and adjudication orders were quashed, with liberty granted to the department to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing separate notices for each year, excluding the period during which the writ petitions remained pending for computing limitation.

List of Cases Reviewed

• M/s.Lakshmi Mobile Accessories v. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) [2025 KHC Online 149]
• Tharayil Medicals v. The Deputy Commissioner [2025 KHC Online 4671. (para 8) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, SGST Department, Thrissur [2025] 173 taxmann.com 867 (Kerala) (para 1)
• Lakshmi Mobile Accessories v. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement), Thiruvananthapuram [2025] 174 taxmann.com 42/99 GSTL 107 (Kerala) (para 1)
• RioCare India (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner CGST and C. Ex. [2025] 170 taxmann.com 605/108 GST 486/95 GSTL 39 (Bombay) (para 3)
• Bangalore Golf Club v. Asstt. CCTes (Enforcement), Bengaluru [2024] 166 taxmann.com 642 (Karnataka) (para 4)
• Oriental Lotus Hotel Supplies (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner [2025] 177 taxmann.com 563/102 GSTL 25 (Madras) (para 4)
• INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. STATE OF BIHAR and others 1986 taxmann.com 1304/[1986] 53 FLR 518 (SC) (para 9)
• Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] 162 CTR 97/245 ITR 360/113 Taxman 470 (SC) (para 9)
• Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25/262 Taxman 279 (SC) (para 9)
• State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das (2019) 6 SCC 270 (para 9)
• Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner [2025] 177 taxmann.com 134/101 GSTL 64 (Delhi) (para 9)
• Vallabh Textiles v. Additional Commissioner Central Tax GST [W.P. (C) No. 13855 of 2024 dated 3-10-2024] (para 9)
• Abdu Rahiman v. District Collector [2009 (4) KHC 283] (para 11).