TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition No. 2031 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 6359 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 6902 Of 2025. - -<br>GST<br>G. S. KULKARNI AND AARTI SATHE, JJ. Writ Petition No. 16848 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 1495 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 1698 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 1122 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 1847 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 1117 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 2127 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 2140 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 2202 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 3388 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 2031 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 6359 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 6902 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 17159 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 10267 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 10274 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 2017 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 14606 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 16077 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 15750 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 17765 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 779 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 246 Of 2026, Writ Petition No. 1878 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 1659 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 1658 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 1656 Of 2025, Writ Petition (L) No. 11901 Of 2025, Writ Petition (L) No. 12468 Of 2025, Writ Petition No. 4002 Of 2025, Writ Petition (L) No. 14256 Of 2025, Writ Petition (L) No. 13604 Of 2025, Writ Pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... WP/11701/2024. For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek A. Rastogi aw Ms. Pooja M. Rastogi aw Ms. Minal Songire aw Ms.Aarya More in WP/16848/2025, WP(ST)/1495/2026, WP(ST)/1698/2026, WP(ST)/2127/2026, WP(ST)/2140/2026, WP(ST)/2202/2026, For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate aw Mr. Mihir Mehta aw Mr. Mohit Raval aw Mr. Jas Sanghavi aw Mr. Vikas Poojary i/b PDS Legal in WP/15750/2025, WP/1122/2026, WP/779/2026, WP/16077/2025. For the Petitioner: Mr. Bharat Raichandani aw Ms. Bhagrati Sahu i/b UBR Legal Advocates in WP(ST)/3388/2026 aw WP/2031/2026 aw WP/17159/2025 aw WP/10267/2025 aw WP/10274/2025 aw WP(ST)/18618/2025. For the Petitioner: Mr. Brijesh Pathak aw Ms. Anjali Joshi in WP(ST)/1847/2026, WP/1117/2026, WP/6359/2025, WP/17765/2025. For the Petitioner in WP/6902/2025: Mr. Mahir Chablani aw Mr. Prathamesh Gargate. For the Petitioner in: Mr. Keval Shailesh Shah WP/2017/2026, WP/14606/2025. For the Respondent in WP/16848/2025: Mr. Karan Adik aw Mr. Suman Kumar Das. For the Respondent: Mr. Karan Adik aw Ms. Niyati Mankad aw Ms. Priyanka Singh in WP(ST)/1847/2026, WP/1117/2026. For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. Subir Kumar aw Mr. Sangeeta Yadav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../1658/2025, & WP(L)/11901/2025. For the Respondent: Mr. Ram Ochani a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, In WP(L)/13604/2025. For the Respondent No. 1 & 5: Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, In WP(L)/20775/2025. For the Respondent No. 1,2,3 & 4: Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Ms. Megha S Bajoria, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, In WP/246/2026. For the Respondent No. 4,5 & 6: Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Ms. Niyati Mankad, Mr. Rupesh Dubey, In WP(L)/36297/2025. For State of Maharashtra: Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl GP, In WP/4002/2025, WP(L)/13604/2025, WP/2608/2025, WPL/20775/2025, WP/4894/2024, WP/4279/2025 & WP(L)/36297/2025. For State of Maharashtra: Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP, In WP/246/2026 & WP(L)/12468/2025. For State of Maharashtra: Mr. Himanshu Takke AGP, In WP/1657/2025, & WP(L)/14256/2025. For the Respondent No. 2 & 4: Ms. Shruti Vyas a/w Ms. Niyati Mankad, In WP/3755/2025. For the Respondent: Mr. Subir Kumar a/w. Ms. Niyanta Trivedi, Ms. Diksha Pandey, In WP/3352/2025. For the Respondent No. 2, 3 & 4: Mr. Saket R. Ketkar in WP/4279/2025. P.C.: 1. In this batch of petitions the primary issue raised by the petitioners relates to the issuance of a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner [WA/627/2025] - Kerala HC; R.A. and Co. vs. AC of Central Taxes, Chennai South [(2025) 33 CENTAX 14 (Mad.)] - Madras HC; R. Ashaarajaa vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI [(2025) 32 CENTAX 453] - Madras HC; Oriental Lotus Hotel Supplies Pvt. Ltd. vs. JC [2025-VIL-870-MAD] -Madras HC; S. J Constructions vs. AC (ST), Vishakhapatnam [(2025) 35 CENTAX 165]- Andhra Pradesh HC; Pramur Homes And Shelters vs. The Union of India [(2025) 37 Centax 324(Kar)] - Karnataka HC. 3. Per contra, the Delhi High Court has taken a different view in the case of Mathur Polymers v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6892 and Ambika Traders v. Commr. (2025) 148 GSTR 1. Also the Allahabad High Court in M/s. S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. And Another Vs. Union of India 2026 SCC OnLine All 191. In such decisions, the Division Bench of these High Courts has categorically held that a consolidated show-cause notice for various financial years can be issued and there is no jurisdictional error on the part of the designated officer in issuing such show-cause notice. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ambika Traders vs. Additional Commissioner [(2025) 33 CENTAX 189] and Mathur Polymers vs. UO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to be conjointly read to mean that each financial year is a separate financial year and the return as defined in Section 2(97) of the CGST Act must be a return for every financial year, along with the audited financial statement. ii. The term "tax period" as defined in Section 2(106) of the CGST Act also contemplates furnishing of Annual Returns, defined as the period for which the return is required to be furnished, which contemplates the provision for an "annual return". Section 44 of the CGST Act, which may include reconciling the value of supplies declared in the return furnished for the financial year with the annual audited financial statement, with every financial year. iii. Section 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act provide for a period of limitation in passing orders, being of 3 years and 5 years respectively. Hence, once such limitation is prescribed, show-cause notices cannot be issued by clubbing multiple years. Such position is accepted by this Court in the case of Milroc (supra) and other decisions. iv. The decision of the co-ordinate Bench would govern the field, and would be binding, in the context of the principle of uniformity and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in the decision of the Madras High Court in Pramur Home and Shelters (supra). 8. On the other hand, the Respondents/ Department has contended as follows:- i. That the issuance of a consolidated show-cause notice is firmly grounded in the legal provisions, as the limitation period is prescribed for each financial year. The consolidation of proceedings does not operate to extend or alter the limitation period prescribed for each individual year. Each financial year is treated as a separate and distinct period for the purposes of limitation and even in such cases, the notices/orders have been issued within the prescribed limitation ii. The issuance of a composite show-cause notice does not in any way breach any of the provisions of the CGST Act or in any manner prejudice the rights of the assessee. A consolidated show-cause notice when issued, does not disturb/override the statutory timeline set for each financial year, as the limitation period is reckoned separately and strictly adhered to in respect of each of the years. Hence, each year stands on its own for the purpose of calculating the limitation. iii. On a plain and conjoint reading of Section 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....73 and 74 of the CGST Act for different tax periods is a jurisdictional issue. viii. The view taken by the Division Bench in Milroc (supra) is on the reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of R.A & Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes [2025] 176 taxmann.com 731/ 111 GST 104/101 GSTL 21 (Madras), which inter alia has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Caltex India AIR 1966 SC 1350. It is the submission of the Respondent, that the Madras High Court in relying on the said judgment of the Supreme Court in Caltex India (supra) itself was an unacceptable proposition, considering the issue in question. According to the respondents, this has resulted in bringing about an incongruous position in law, rendering the judgment in Milroc (supra) to be per incuriam. It is submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Caltex India (supra) was dealing with a case of one common assessment order passed for various years. The said judgment categorically held that if a part of the assessment order is valid and some part of the assessment order is invalid, then the entire assessment order cannot be set aside. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the judgment of the Madras High Court, in R.A.& Company (supra) and Titan Company Ltd. (supra) which according to the Respondents could not have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Caltex India (supra), Milroc would not lay down the correct position in law. It is submitted that this Court in Milroc (supra), also did not consider the effect of Section 74(10) vis-a-vis the scope of Section 74(1) and 74 (3), thus also on such ground, the judgment in the case of Milroc (supra) does not lay down the correct position in law. Further the said judgment is in conflict with the constitution bench judgment in the case of Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1962 SCC OnLine SC 8. xii. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, for the Financial Years 2019- 2020 and 2020-21 extended the time limit/ due date to furnish the annual return and in view of the same, the show-cause notice which has been issued does not seek to revive any period which has elapsed. xiii. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs Rajeev Bansal and Another (2024) 469 ITR 46, has held that the expressi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, it is categorically stated that the clubbing of several financial years in one show-cause notice does not compromise the timelines prescribed in Section 73(10) and Section 74(10) of the CGST Act and does not result in an indirect extension in the limitation period, contrary to judicial precedents. Instead, a single notice/order covering multiple years is bound by the limitation for each financial year individually, by issuing an order/show-cause notice within the prescribed time limit. Analysis 9. Having heard the Learned Counsel on behalf of the parties, we are of the opinion that although the Court would be bound by the decision of the co- ordinate bench in Milroc (supra), however, there are significant legal issues as raised by the Respondent-Department, including to rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court, which in our opinion deserve due consideration by a larger bench. Such issues, we find are not the subject matter of an express contention and consideration of the Division Bench in the case of Milroc (supra), as also in the other decisions, which have taken a similar view that a single consolidated show- cause notice cannot be issued for multiple financial years....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax. (4) The service of such statement shall be deemed to be service of notice on such person under sub-section (1), subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon for such tax periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice. (5) The person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment. (6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (7) Where the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax. (4) The service of statement under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be service of notice under sub-section (1) of section 73, subject to the condition that the grounds relied upon in the said statement, except the ground of fraud, or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax, for periods other than those covered under subsection (1) are the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice. (5) The person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable under section 50 and a penalty equivalent to fifteen per cent. of such tax on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment. (6) The proper officer, on receipt of such information, shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1), in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, containing the details of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized for such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1), on the person chargeable with tax. Sub-section (4) to sub-section (8) are the provisions which determine the further course of action, which includes the situation as contemplated in sub-section (5) that a person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the statement under sub-section (3), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable thereon under section 50 on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer in writing of such payment. The proper officer, in such case, in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (6), (7) and (8) is required to consider whether the tax paid is adequate or they fall short of the actual payment which is required to be made. 13. It is in the aforesaid context, the effect of sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 73 is required to be considered. Sub-section (9) of the said provisions ordains that the proper officer shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inabove. 17. On a plain reading of the provisions, we find it difficult to accept that the intention of the legislature in providing for sub-section (1) of Section 73/74 was to confine the authority of the proper officer to a issue show cause notice not for the different periods but for a specific period for which one return could be filed. This prima facie is clear from the plain language of the provisions and more importantly, from the conjoint reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3). Sub- section (3) specifically uses the word "for any period under sub-section (1)". Further, compounded by using the words "such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1) .....", when sub section (3) permits issuance of a statement for a period other than the period of the notice under sub-section (1), deeming it to be a notice as provided for in sub-section (4), it gives a credence to the respondents contention of it being permissible for the proper officer to issue a notice for different periods under sub-section (1), as permissible under sub-section (3) and (4). 18. In our view when the legislature has used such specific words, it is difficult to accept a proposition that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion prescribed thereon, has reached to a conclusion that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax periods, subject matter of the impugned show cause notice assailed in the said proceedings. Following observations are required to be noted: "18. When we have perused the scheme of assessment and payment of tax, we find that the taxes payable under the Act commensurate with Return filed for 'each tax period' and this is may be in the form of self-assessment or provisional assessment as provided in the Act. However, what is important to note is that there is a prescription of period of five years of due date on which 'annual Return' is filed for the relevant financial year and provision of payment and recovery is also included in the statutory scheme in form of Section 73 and 74, which underwent significant amendment by the Act 15 of 2024 and the provision as per sub-section (12) shall be applicable for determination of tax pertaining to the period up to Financial Year 2023-24 and for financial year 2024-25 and onwards, the provision under Section 74A will be relevant. 19. From the perusal of the entire Scheme, it is evidently clear to us that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery financial year as separate unit, due to which, the limitation has been fixed for each and every financial year separately. When such being the case, clubbing more than one financial year, for the purpose of issuance of show cause notice, would not be considered as in accordance with the provisions of Section 73/74 of the GST Act. Therefore, the limitation period of 3 years/5 years would be separately applicable for every financial year, thus, the limitation period would vary from one financial year to other. It is not that the limitation would be carried over or continuing in nature, so as to, club the financial years together. For these reasons also, the bunching of show cause notice is impermissible. In this regard, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision rendered, which was reported in AIR 1966 SC 1350 (State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd) has held as follows: "where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment year could be easily split up and dissected and the items can be separated and taxed for different periods." 11. Section 73(3)/74(3) of the GST Act refers to issuance of "s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the show cause notice issued in respect of different assessment years. In other words, the entitlement to proceed and assess each year being separate and distinct, and further the time limit being prescribed under the Statute for each assessment year being distinct, we see no reason as to why we should not hold that separate show cause notices are required before proceeding to assess the assessee for different years of assessment under Section 74. 12. There is yet another reason why we should hold that separate show-cause notices are issued for different assessment years. There may be cases where proceedings are initiated in the guise of a show cause notice under Section 74 wherein, on facts, the case of the assessee will fall under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. We find that insofar as the time limit prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST/SGST Act is concerned, it is three years instead of five years and further, the aspect of fraud, wilful misstatement and suppression do not arise for consideration in proceedings under Section 73. Thus, by issuing a composite notice, the assessing authority, cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 73 to complete the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....athur Polymers (supra) in which the Division Bench considering the judgment of the Madras High Court in Titan Company Ltd. (supra) as also referring to Ambika Traders v. Commr. (supra) held that the Court having fully considered the statutory scheme also the legislative history of the GST Act, issuance of consolidated notice for multiple financial years would be permissible and tenable. The relevant observations as made by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Mathur Polymers (supra) are required to be noted, which read thus: 15. The second issue that is being raised herein is in respect of Section 74(10) of the Act, stating that a combined Show Cause Notice and order cannot be given and separate orders have to be passed in respect of separate financial years. 16. In support of the said submission, reliance is placed upon by the Petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others Versus Caltex (India) Ltd. 1965 SCC OnLine SC 168, wherein reference was also made to the decision in Bennet and White (Calgary) Ltd. v. Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5, [1953] S.C.R. 1069. 17. The judicial committee, in Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....74(4) of the CGST Act is "for any period" and "for such periods" respectively. This contemplates that a notice can be issued for a period which could be more than one financial year. Similar is the language even in Section 73 of the CGST Act. The relevant provisions read as under: 44. Some of the other provisions of the CGST Act, which are relevant, include Section 2(106) of the CGST Act, which defines "tax period" as under: "2.[...] (106) "tax period" means the period for which the return is required to be furnished" 45. Thus, Sections 74(3), 74(4), 73(3) and 73(4) of the CGST Act use the term "for any period" and "for such periods". This would be in contrast with the language used in Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act where the term "financial year" is used. The said provisions read as under: "73.[...] (10) The proper officer shall issue the order under sub-section (9) within three years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates to or within three years from the date of erroneous refund" "74.[...] 10) T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who have in fact utilized or availed of ITC through non-existent supplies/purchases, fake firms and non- existent entities. The ultimate beneficiary of the ITC in the most cases may not even be the persons in whose name the GST registration is obtained. Businesses, individuals, and entities have charged commissions for passing on ITC. In several cases, it has also been noticed that the persons in whose name the GST registration stands are in fact domestic helps, drivers, employees, etc., of businessmen who are engaged on salary and who may not even be aware that their identities are being misused. In the above decision, the Court has fully considered the statutory scheme as also the legislative history of the GST Act and held that in cases relating to availment of Input Tax Credit, considering the maze of transactions and due to the fact that the transactions may be spread over several years, issuance of a consolidated notice for multiple Financial Years would be permissible and tenable." (emphasis supplied) 25. On behalf of the respondents, reliance is placed on the recent decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. S.A. Aromatics Pvt.Ltd. And Another (supra), whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." enable the Proper Officer to identify a dispute of the nature specified in the later part of Sections 73(1) and 74(1) of the Acts. 70. In that context, sub-Section (1) of Sections 73 and 74 provide that the Proper Officer 'shall serve notice' with respect to specified amount of tax not paid, tax short-paid or tax, wrongly refunded or ITC that may have been erroneously granted or wrongly availed or wrongly utilized. With respect to that dispute, the noticee is required to "show cause" as to why they may not be required to pay the disputed amount of tax, along with interest and penalty. 71. By very nature of that proceeding contemplated by the legislature, the legislature has avoided conditioning it within the limits of a 'period' or 'tax period' or to one FY. Therefore, there is no warrant to restrict the application of Sections 73 and 74 of the Acts to singular 'tax period', emerging from obligation to file return for such tax period. It further appears that the legislature has deliberately avoided the language used under Chapter XII of the Acts pertaining to assessments, whether on the strength of returns or on a best judgment as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 75. In this regard, we may also note, under the classic return-based assessment procedures under the sales tax laws, there existed provisions for reassessment in certain circumstances, involving escapement of turnover, etc. That concept does not find any place under the Acts. To that extent, the adjudication procedure, especially under Section 73 of the Acts, is a clear replacement for reassessment procedure. Thus, the adjudication procedure is traceable to the procedures of Central Excise and Service Tax regimes. The primary difference is the reassessment procedure recognizes the FY or AY as a distinct unit of assessment, whereas the adjudication procedure breaches the end boundaries thereof and looks at the 'dispute' with respect to payability of specified amounts of tax or penalty or reversal of refund or availment of ITC etc., as the subject matter of the proceedings to be drawn. 76. In support of the above, we find further validation in the statutory provisions in Sections 73(3) and 74(3) of the Acts. The Proper Officer is permitted to issue a statement containing details of tax not paid or short-paid for 'such (other) periods', that may not ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation, it does not commend to us that therefore the proceedings initiated under those sections may only relate to or be referable to the individual 'tax period' for which an annual or other return may be filed. 80. The legislative wisdom is to be deciphered from the intent of the legislature as expressed by specific words used by it. To the extent, the legislature has clearly provided for the scope of proceedings; the manner of their initiation and conduct, and their time limitations through the various sub-clauses of Sections 73 and 74, we find no conflict between the language used in Sections 73(1), (2), (3) and (4) or 74 (1), (2), (3) and (4) with that used in Section 73(10) or 74(10). While Sections 73(1) and 74(1) are provisions providing for the scope/ subject matter of those proceedings, Sections 73(2) read with 73(10) and 74(2) read with 74(10), ensure that notices are issued and proceedings are concluded within the time limitations prescribed under those provisions, Sections 73(3) read with 73(4) and Section 74(3) and 74(4), are provisions for the issuance of further statements by the Proper Officer that naturally cause increase of the specified tax dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew taken by the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders v. Commr. (supra) was assailed by the petitioner therein before the Supreme Court. Such Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 1 September, 2025. Thus, the said decision has attained finality in view of the proceedings not being pressed. However, what is of immense significance is that the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Mathur Polymers was assailed before the Supreme Court in the proceedings of a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 7 November, 2025 by a speaking order (supra). Once the Supreme Court has found that there was no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court in M/s. Mathur Polymers (supra), certainly the principles of law as laid down by Kunhayammed and Ors. (supra) would become applicable, in which the Supreme Court has made the following observations: "(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised, to be time barred. Also it is always open for the proper officer, to consider such objection, and confine the determination only in respect of such period in regard to which such limitation is available. Thus to consider a bar under sub-section (1) to issue a consolidated show cause notice for different periods merely because sub- section (10) provides for limitation in passing of orders, in our opinion, would amount to an incorrect reading of sub-section (1), imposing an unwarranted restriction to the operation and legislative intent of sub-section (1) of Section 73/74 . It cannot be overlooked that sub-section (10) prescribes limitation, when the proper officer passes an order as per sub section (9). A limitation to pass any order cannot be a limitation on issuance of a show cause notice. As the limitation for passing an order is not the same as issuance of a show cause notice. The two are independent statutory concepts. Such statutory concepts are quite compartmentalized, inasmuch as subsection (1) pertains to issuance of show cause notice and subsection(10) pertains to passing....