M/S Hsr Ceramics And Sanitary Ware vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER PASSED BY THE NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31788 RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING F.NO.GEXCOM / ADJN / GST / 9932 / 2024-CGST-RANGE-B 5-DIV- 5 / DIN.2024125700000000B72F / ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL 158 / 2024-25 DATED 30/12/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or directions in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent authority bearing F.No. GEXCOM/ADJN/GST/9932/2024-CGST-RANGE- B 5-DIV- 5 / DIN : 2024125700000000B72F / ORDER – IN - ORIGINAL 158 / 2024-25 dated 30/12/2024 vide Annexure 'D"
b) Issue such other writ or orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”
Heard Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for respondent.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the case is squarely covered by the order passed by a HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31788 coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.26164/2024, disposed on 30.09.2024. 4. Learned counsel for respondents – revenue would not dispute the position of law.
The order passed in W.P.No.26164/2024, reads as follows:
“3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though several contentions are urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the main / primary issue that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned Notices at Annexures-A and B both dated 05.08.2024 are vitiated on account of the fact that the same purport to club / consolidate / group the demand for more than one financial year i.e., for the tax period from 2017 to 2023 and as to whether the impugned Notices deserve to be quashed on this ground. The said issue came up for consideration in the case of M/s. Bangalore Golf Club vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes – W.P.No.16500/2024 dated 07.08.2024, in which, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:-
“ In this writ petition, the petitioner, a Club, challenges the impugned show cause notice dated 07.05.2024, as detailed in Annexure-F, and the summary of the show cause notice dated 08.05.2024, as outlined in Annexure-G, issued by the respondent for the tax periods 2019-20, 2020- 21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24. The petitioner contends that these notices, issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, are flawed due to the improper consolidation of multiple tax periods into a single show cause notice.
The petitioner’s primary argument is that the respondent cannot issue a common show cause HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31788 notice by grouping the tax periods from 2019 to 2023-24. The petitioner asserts that under Section 73 of the CGST Act, a specific action must be completed within the relevant year, and the limitation period of three years applies separately to each assessment year. Consequently, the petitioner contends that clubbing multiple tax periods in a single notice is impermissible, and separate notices should have been issued for each assessment year under sub-Section (1) of Section
The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in State of (India) Ltd.,2. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment order can be distinctly separated and must be treated independently.
This Court has reviewed the judgment of the Madras High Court and the scope of inquiry under Section 73 of the CGST Act. Based on the established legal principles and the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the respondent erred in issuing a consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years, spanning from 2019 to 2023-24. 5. Section 73(10) of the CGST Act mandates a specific time limit from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which the tax due relates. The law stipulates that particular actions must be completed within a designated year, and such actions should be executed in accordance with the law's provisions. The principles enunciated in the judgment cited by 1 W.P.No.33164 of 2023 2 AIR 1966 SC 1350 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31788 the Hon’ble Supreme Court are directly applicable to the present case.
For the reasons aforementioned, this Court concludes that the show cause notices issued by the respondent are fundamentally flawed. The practice of issuing a single, consolidated show cause notice for multiple assessment years contravenes the provisions of the CGST Act and established legal precedents.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned show cause notice dated 07.05.2024 (Annexure-F) and the summary of the show cause notice dated 08.05.2024 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondent for the tax periods 2019- 20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, and 2023-24 are hereby quashed;
(iii) This order, however, does not preclude the respondent from issuing separate show cause notices for each assessment year in compliance with Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.”
As is clear from the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the issue in controversy involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and consequently, the impugned Notices deserve to be quashed by reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to issue separate / independent Notices for each assessment year in terms of *Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.”
In the light of the afore-quoted order and facts obtaining the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, the subject petition deserves to succeed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31788
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 30.12.2024, at Annexure-D passed by the respondent, stands quashed. iii) The matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh to the hands of the respondent, after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the law laid down in W.P.No.16500/2024, disposed on 07.08.2024. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to issue separate / independent notices for each assessment year in terms of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and proceed further in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 178
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.