Consolidated show-cause notices for multiple years allowed when fraudulent ITC claimed; appeal permitted with pre-deposit by Oct 31, 2025

HC held that consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years are permissible where fraudulent availment or utilization of input tax credit is alleged, and directed the petitioner to avail appellate remedy. The petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order and summary in DRC-07 before the Appellate Authority by 31 October 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit; if so filed, the appeal shall not be dismissed as time-barred and will be adjudicated on merits.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a consolidated show cause notice and adjudication/order can be issued in respect of input tax credit (ITC) wrongly availed or utilized "for any period" spanning multiple financial years under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act.

2. Whether the institution of parallel or prior proceedings by a State GST authority, including dropping of proceedings by a State authority on the same subject-matter, precludes the Central GST authority from issuing a show cause notice or passing an adjudicatory order in respect of the same facts.

3. Whether an adjudication order can be impugned on the ground that the order was passed without considering the reply filed by the person to whom the show cause notice was issued.

4. Relief-related issue: Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file an appeal notwithstanding limitation, and on what terms the Court should deal with requirement of pre-deposit and preservation of other contentions.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of consolidated show cause notice / order for multiple financial years

Legal framework: Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act permit determination of tax not paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised. Sections 73(3), 73(4), 74(3) and 74(4) refer to notices/statements "for any period" or "for such periods"; Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation periods referring to "financial year". "Tax period" is defined as the period for which the return is required to be furnished.

Precedent treatment: The Court follows prior treatment holding that the statutory language permitting issuance of notices "for any period" contemplates periods beyond a single financial year; consolidated notices for multiple years are permissible where grounds are the same and where fraud/wilful-misstatement/suppression of facts are alleged.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that the distinct use of the terms "period/periods" in subsections (3) and (4), contrasted with explicit "financial year" in subsections (10), demonstrates legislative intent that an enquiry or notice may legitimately span multiple tax periods or financial years. The nature of fraudulent availment or utilisation of ITC often requires connecting transactions across financial years (e.g., purchases recorded in one year and supplies in another), and a solitary year's transactions may not reveal a pattern of fraud. Therefore a consolidated notice and order are not only permissible but, in large-scale fraudulent schemes, necessary to establish the modality of illegality. The Court notes that consolidated notices that set out year-wise amounts and particulars in the order permit decipherability and do not violate statutory language. The economic and policy context of ITC (as an incentive for compliant inter se transactions) and documented large-scale misuse of ITC reinforce the necessity of a read of the statute that allows consolidation for investigative efficacy.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that consolidated notices/orders for multiple financial years are permissible under Sections 73 and 74 (given the statutory language and circumstances of fraud) is ratio decidendi. Observations on practical reasons (nature of ITC, parliamentary disclosures of large-scale bogus supplies) support the ratio and are consequential to the decision.

Conclusion: Consolidated show cause notices and orders spanning multiple financial years are lawful under the CGST Act where the statutory conditions are met and the grounds relied upon for the additional periods are the same; such consolidation is often necessary in cases of fraudulent availment/utilisation of ITC.

Issue 2: Effect of State GST dropping proceedings on Central GST action

Legal framework: The judgment recognizes competing administrative/departmental actions by different GST authorities (Central and State) but does not state a categorical statutory bar on the Central authority reopening or pursuing proceedings where a State authority has taken a different view or dropped proceedings.

Precedent treatment: The Court refers to the factual contention (that the Delhi GST Department had dropped proceedings) but does not accept this as a bar to Central proceedings. The opinion follows the principle that adjudicatory competence and investigatory outcomes by one authority do not ipso facto preclude another authority from pursuing a separate statutory mandate, particularly where the Central authority (DG-GST Intelligence) conducted an independent investigation and alleges large-scale fraud.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes that a contrary position taken by the Central GST Department cannot be foreclosed merely because the State authority had earlier dropped proceedings, absent specific legal doctrine or statutory provision creating finality in favour of the taxpayer. The Court did not decide the merits of any estoppel or res judicata argument and left all contentions open for adjudication in the appellate forum.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The disposition that the petitioner should pursue appellate remedy and that prior State dropping of proceedings does not automatically preclude Central action (as applied here) is part of the operative conclusion; however detailed doctrinal limits of bar/estoppel were not authoritatively decided and are therefore largely obiter on broader principles.

Conclusion: Dropping of proceedings by a State GST authority does not, without more, preclude the Central GST authority from issuing or pursuing show cause notices based on its investigation; taxpayer's remedies lie in appeal where such contentions can be examined on merits.

Issue 3: Allegation that adjudication order ignored the petitioner's reply

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that replies/representations filed by an affected person be considered by the authority before passing adverse orders. The CGST statutory scheme contemplates issuance of SCN and consideration of replies in adjudication.

Precedent treatment: The Court records the petitioner's contention that its reply was not considered but does not make a definitive factual finding on non-consideration in this judgment; rather, the Court leaves this and other contentions to be adjudicated on merits in the appeal.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given the complexity and volume of allegations (large-scale alleged bogus ITC across multiple years), the Court directs that the petitioner avail its appellate remedy rather than grant interlocutory relief on the ground of alleged non-consideration. The appellate forum is the appropriate forum to adjudicate whether the replies were in fact considered and whether natural justice was complied with.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The Court does not decide whether the authority failed to consider the reply; the instruction to proceed by appeal and to keep contentions open is dispositive of relief but is not a ratio determination on the natural justice issue.

Conclusion: Allegation of non-consideration of reply is left open for adjudication on appeal; no interim relief was granted on this basis in the present proceedings.

Issue 4: Relief - permission to file appeal and limitation/pre-deposit directions

Legal framework: Statutory appellate remedy is available against adjudication orders under the CGST Act; limitation rules and pre-deposit requirements apply to appeals but courts possess equitable power in appropriate cases to permit belated filing or to specify conditions for adjudication on merits.

Interpretation and reasoning: Considering that the impugned order is appealable and the petitioner has raised substantial grounds (including consolidated notice argument and claims of prior administrative conduct by State authority and non-consideration of reply), the Court permits the petitioner to file the appeal and the DRC-07 summary before the Appellate Authority by a stipulated date with requisite pre-deposit. The Court directs that if the appeal is filed by the specified date, it shall not be dismissed as barred by limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits; all contentions are kept open for the appellate authority to decide.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The procedural direction to permit filing of appeal notwithstanding limitation, subject to pre-deposit by a specified date, is an operative order and forms the remedy granted by the Court in these proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioner is permitted to file the appeal and statutory summary before the Appellate Authority by the stipulated date with requisite pre-deposit; such appeal shall not be dismissed as time-barred and shall be adjudicated on merits; all substantive contentions remain open.

---