TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tains to financial years 2018-19 to 2021-22 saying that the petitioner has, during this period, suppressed taxable value, and thereby made short payments of Central Goods and Service Tax. 03] 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 show cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../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." 04] As could be seen, the Division Bench has, in categorical terms, held that there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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. 08] 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. 09] 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 held that show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se structure of the statute. These niceties, in our view, were not considered by the Delhi High Court. 10] 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 Supreme Court has neither stayed nor overruled the view taken in above two cases. 11] Despite the aforesaid position of law, the learned Counsel for the respondents is relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others (W.P. (C) No.5581/2025), saying that this is the latest view taken by the Delhi High Court. 12] We fail to understand as to how this ....