M/S.Balamore Estates Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Balamore Estates Private Limited, filed six writ petitions challenging assessment orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise and the Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise, for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. The impugned orders, dated 31.12.2024 and followed by summary orders dated 02.04.2025, were uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested separate assessment orders and demands for each year. The petitioner argued that the law regarding composite notices and orders under Section 74 of the GST enactments had attained clarity, citing various High Court decisions.

Held

The Court considered the arguments and the relevant legal provisions, including Sections 73 and 74 of the GST enactments, which are inspired by earlier indirect tax laws. The Court noted that the GST enactments and rules do not mandate separate notices if the conditions for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 are met. The Court referenced the decision in Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P., regarding the issuance of notices for normal versus extended periods of limitation. It also acknowledged that while the Titan Company case suggested pragmatic issuance of separate notices, the Karnataka High Court had taken it further by quashing show cause notices entirely. The Court also noted the Bombay High Court's contra view in Riocare India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST and C.Ex. Ultimately, the Court found no scope for quashing the impugned orders. However, at the petitioner's request, liberty was granted to file a statutory appeal against the assessment orders within 30 days from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to entertain and dispose of the appeal on merits, considering that the petitioner had already paid 100% of the tax, 92% of the interest, and 25% of the penalty. The writ petitions were disposed of with this liberty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned composite assessment orders and summary orders for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23, issued by the respondents, are liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the respondents are required to issue separate assessment orders and demands for each assessment year? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the law concerning composite notices and orders under Section 74 of the GST enactments has been clarified by judicial pronouncements. They relied on the decisions in Titan Company Limited Vs. The Joint Commissioner and others (Madras High Court), M/S.Veremax Technologie Services Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court), and Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) Vs. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories (Kerala High Court), which affirmed similar views. These decisions, according to the petitioner, suggest that separate notices or orders might be necessary, or at least that the practice of issuing composite orders requires scrutiny. Revenue's Arguments: The learned senior standing counsel for the respondent appeared and took notice. The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel in defense of the impugned orders, beyond their appearance and acceptance of notice.