2026 (1) TMI 1557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice issued pertains from April - 2018 to March - 2024, saying that the petitioner has, during this period, suppressed taxable value, and thereby made short payments of Central Goods and Service Tax. 3] The argument is that clubbing of period, while issuing notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act, is not permissible. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved is covered by a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Goa in M/s. Milroc Good Earth Developers Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 2203/2025 decided on 9/10/2025], wherein, the Court held that if an authority lacks jurisdiction to have composite assessment for different tax periods/assessment years, then the formality of responding to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e tax not paid/short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within five years from the date of erroneous Return. Thus, there is limitation prescribed for demand of tax and its recovery. The Act of 2017, therefore involve a definite tax period, based on the filing of the Return, which can be either monthly or annual Return and if the assessment is based on annual Return, the tax period shall be the relevant financial year. In the light of the statutory scheme, we find that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax period which is attempted by the impugned Show Cause Notices assailed in the Petition." 4] As could be seen, the Division Bench has, in categorical terms, held ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 50279/2025, wherein, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Counsel argued that the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has attained finality. 8] True it is that the judgment of the Delhi High Court has attained finality, however, concept of merger of judgment will not apply here because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the petition in limine and not on merit. 9] There is another reason why we find that the judgments of the High Court of Bombay will prevail. In the case of M/s. Milroc Good Earth Developers Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. (supra), following amongst others were the reasons why the Court....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the explicit year wise structure of the statute. These niceties, in our view, were not considered by the Delhi High Court. 10] The Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha and Marathwada, Nagpur Vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf Tumsar [1978 (2) ELTJ 624 Bombay] held that until a contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another State, is the final law of land. 11] In the present case, since this Court has, subsequent to decision of the Delhi High Court, taken a different view, the authorities below will be bound by the subsequent judgments. The Hon'ble Su....