TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 953
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2025, 13261/2025, 13290/2025, 13773/2025, 13913/2025, 14516/2025, 14625/2025, 14661/2025, 14669/2025, 14757/2025, 14871/2025, 14961/2025, 15178/2025, 15357/2025, 15691/2025, 16352/2025, 17091/2025, 17159/2025, 17167/2025, 17320/2025, 17369/2025, 17374/2025, 17386/2025, 17462/2025, 17810/2025, 18102/2025, 19420/2025, 19684/2025, 19838/2025, 20034/2025, 20140/2025, 20141/2025, 20535/2025, 21599/2025, 23985/2025, 24609/2025, 24873/2025, 24881/2025, 24897/2025, 25000/2025, 25010/2025, 25041/2025, 25731/2025, 25872/2025, 26003/2025, 26016/2025, 26039/2025, 26108/2025, 26162/2025, 26236/2025, 26303/2025, 26649/2025, 26832/2025, 26876/2025, 26886/2025, 26947/2025, 27192/2025, 27303/2025, 27627/2025, 27628/2025, 27670/2025, 27855/2025, 27898/2025, 28368/2025, 29858/2025, 30238/2025, 30250/2025, 30257/2025, 30646/2025, 31252/2025, 31255/2025, 31461/2025, 31820/2025, 32680/2025, 32785/2025, 33408/2025, 33760/2025, 34141/2025, 36084/2025, 36100/2025, 36169/2025, 37031/2025, 39107/2024, 41355/2024, 42558/2024, 44492/2024]. For the Petitioner: By Advs. Shri. Abraham Joseph Markos, Sri. Isaac Thomas, Shri. Alexander Joseph Markos, Shri. John Vithayathil, Sri. V. Abraham Markos. For the Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is to be conducted in relation to each of the years in which such pre-conditions exist for the invocation of the power under Section 74(1). While there may be cases where the data available with the proper officer is such that it suggests the existence of pre-conditions for more than one financial/assessment years, the proper officer should ideally issue separate show cause notices to cover the different financial/assessment years since the period available to the Department for adjudication of the show cause notices varies depending upon the due date for furnishing of annual return for that year. In our view, consolidated show cause notices covering multiple financial/assessment years can be issued only in circumstances where the statutory provision provides for a common period for initiation and completion of the adjudication. For instance, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, a show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation of five years has to cover a prior period of five years ending with the date of issuance of the show cause notice. Similar was the provision under Section 11A of the erstwhile Central Excise Act. Under both of the above provisions, the show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the "financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates" while stipulating the last date for passing the adjudication order. A consolidated notice would also result in a consolidated adjudication order covering several financial/assessment years and in the event of it being adverse to the assessee, the fee/pre-deposit required to be paid by an assessee for preferring a statutory appeal would also be higher. This could not have been the Scheme of the statutory provisions which are expected to adhere to principles of fairness in taxation. In this context, it is useful to remind ourselves of the following observations of Justice H.R. Khanna in CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. - [(1976) 4 SCC 435] as regards the nature of the quasi-judicial function exercised by assessing officers: "10. [...] The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is part of their duty to ensure that no tax which is legitimately due from an assessee should remain unrecovered they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might indicate that scales are wei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nforcement) Bengaluru [(2025) 26 Centax 441(Kar.)]. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader [Taxes] and the Learned Senior Panel Counsel seriously opposed the challenge raised against the notices by pointing out that, while rendering the decisions referred to above, certain crucial points were not taken into account. It was also contended by them that, since the contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court is already upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court by rejecting the Special Leave Petition by the Honourable Supreme Court, it is open to this Court to take a contrary view than taken in Lakshmi Mobile(supra) and Tharayil Medicals (supra). 6. As regards the points which were not considered by this Court in Lakshmi Mobile(surpa) and Tharayil Medicals (supra), it is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that the scheme of proceedings to be initiated under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act are completely different from the assessment/reassessment proceedings contemplated under the earlier corresponding enactments such as Kerala Value Added Tax Act and the Kerala General Sales Tax Act etc. It was contended that, the purpose of Sections 73 and 74 is to find out th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssuing composite notice for multiple years. In Lakhsmi Mobile (supra)and Tharayil Medicals (surpa), the prejudices that are caused to the tax payers in various ways due to issuance of the composite notices have been dealt with in detail and also taking note of the fact that, there is no provision in the CGST Act that enables the officers concerned to issue a composite notice, findings were entered into by this Court, interfering with such notices and order, holding that such notices/orders are beyond the powers of the officers concerned. After carefully going through the observations and the reasons mentioned in those judgments, I do not find any scope for a different view. More over, the said decision is also binding upon this Court. 9. When it comes to the question of the decisions rendered by the High Court of Delhi, which is Vallabh Textiles v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate and Others [WP(C) No.13855 of 2024] which was followed again by the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North [2025 (8) TMI 315-Delhi High Court] and the orders passed in SLP upholding the said decisions, it is to ....