M/S North East Petrochemicals vs. The Union Of INDIA And Othrs

Held

The Court held that there is no bar to issuing a consolidated show cause notice for different financial years under Section 73(1) or Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Similarly, the Court found no bar to passing a consolidated order for different financial years under Section 73(9) or Section 74(9) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court relied on its previous decision in M/S Tata Projects Limited vs. Union of India & Others. Consequently, the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner was dismissed, as the Proper Officer had the authority to issue the consolidated show cause notice and pass the consolidated Order-in-Original for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23. The Court explicitly stated that it had not dealt with the merits of the Order-in-Original. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, within 30 days, with a direction that the Appellate Authority decide the appeal without insisting on the question of limitation. Any interim protections granted earlier were to continue until the Appellate Authority considered the stay application.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s North East Petrochemicals, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original dated December 29, 2025. This order demanded an amount of Rs. 7,21,64,532/- as tax, interest, and penalty for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the issuance of a consolidated show cause notice and the passing of a consolidated order for multiple financial years were impermissible. The respondents are the Union of India and various GST authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether it is permissible to issue a consolidated show cause notice for different financial years under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether it is permissible to pass a consolidated order for different financial years under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that consolidated notices and orders for multiple financial years are impermissible. The respondents contended that the Proper Officer had the jurisdiction to issue consolidated notices and orders. The petitioner relied on the principle that such consolidated actions are not allowed. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but their stance is that the actions were within the Proper Officer's jurisdiction.