Composite GST notices, same-subject-matter bar, and mandatory adjudication limitation shape partial relief in tax proceedings.

Sections 73 and 74 permit a composite show-cause notice covering multiple tax periods, financial years, and noticees, so such notices are not invalid on that ground alone. Proceedings are barred under Section 6(2)(b) where the same subject-matter has already been taken up by another tax administration, and those affected matters were quashed. Separate adjudication orders cannot validly arise from a single show-cause notice unless proceedings are lawfully transferred, making duplicate final orders impermissible. The limitation periods under Sections 73(10), 74(10) and 75(10) are mandatory; where the prescribed time had expired, the proceedings were held time-barred. Relief was therefore granted only in part.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a composite show-cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 could validly cover more than one tax period, more than one financial year, and more than one noticee; (ii) whether proceedings were barred under Section 6(2)(b) where the same subject-matter had already been taken up by another tax administration; (iii) whether separate adjudication orders could validly emanate from a single show-cause notice; and (iv) whether the limitation under Sections 73(10), 74(10) and 75(10) was mandatory and rendered the impugned proceedings time-barred in the affected matters.

Issue (i): whether a composite show-cause notice under Sections 73 and 74 could validly cover more than one tax period, more than one financial year, and more than one noticee.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act distinguishes return-based assessment from dispute-based adjudication. Sections 73 and 74 do not confine the demand proceeding to a single tax period or financial year, and sub-sections (3) and (4) expressly permit inclusion of other periods on the same grounds. Section 74 also contemplates notices involving multiple noticees in the same proceedings. The Court held that no artificial restriction could be read into these provisions merely because return filing and assessment ordinarily operate on a period basis.

Conclusion: A composite notice under Section 74 is not invalid merely because it covers multiple tax periods, financial years, or multiple noticees.

Issue (ii): whether proceedings were barred under Section 6(2)(b) where the same subject-matter had already been taken up by another tax administration.

Analysis: The bar against initiation of proceedings on the same subject-matter was held to apply where an identical liability or overlapping dispute had already been taken up by the other administration. On the facts of the concerned matters, the Court found that some proceedings were covered by earlier action and the bar attracted in those cases. The Court applied the principle that parallel proceedings on the same cause of action and same dispute cannot be pursued.

Conclusion: Proceedings hit by the same-subject-matter bar under Section 6(2)(b) were quashed in the affected matters.

Issue (iii): whether separate adjudication orders could validly emanate from a single show-cause notice.

Analysis: An adjudication order is the culmination of the notice issued by the competent authority. Unless the proceedings are lawfully transferred, the authority issuing and conducting the notice must conclude it. The Act does not provide for an automatic transfer, and once one authority has proceeded on the notice, another authority cannot simultaneously or independently pass a separate final order on the same notice. Such duplication was held impermissible.

Conclusion: Separate adjudication orders arising from one show-cause notice, without lawful transfer of proceedings, are invalid.

Issue (iv): whether the limitation under Sections 73(10), 74(10) and 75(10) was mandatory and rendered the impugned proceedings time-barred in the affected matters.

Analysis: The Court held that the limitation prescribed for passing adjudication orders is rigid and mandatory. The initiation deadline under Sections 73(2) and 74(2) is linked to that final limitation period, and failure to comply renders the proceedings concluded by operation of law. On the facts of the relevant petitions, some notices and proceedings were found to be beyond the permissible period and therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation provisions are mandatory, and the affected proceedings were time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part. The Court sustained the validity of composite notices in principle, but granted relief where proceedings were barred by Section 6(2)(b), where multiple final orders were passed on a single notice, and where limitation had expired; the remaining petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections 73 and 74 govern dispute-based adjudication and are not confined to a single tax period or financial year, but proceedings on the same subject-matter already initiated by another administration are barred, and the statutory limitation for adjudication is mandatory.

---