TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etition No. 735 Of 2026, With Writ Petition No. 743 Of 2026 With Civil Application No. 2226 Of 2026 In WP/743/2026. - -<br>GST<br>ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Makrand Joshi a/w Mr. Chandak Raviraj R.. Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S. W. Munde. Advocate for Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. P. P. Dawalkar a/ w. Mr. P. P. Kothari. Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. D. S. Ladda a/w Mr. P. P. Kothari. Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. D. S. Ladda a/w Mr. P. P. Kothari. ORDER : 1. At the outset, Civil Application No. 2217 of 2026 and Civil Application No. 2226 of 2026 are taken up. Both the applications seek amendment to the respective writ petitions. The app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., decided on 17/01/2026); * M/s Paras Stone Industries v. Union of India reported in 2026 (1) TMI 839; * Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 2025 (11) TMI 1939; and * ICAD School of Learning Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Writ Petition No.736 of 2026, decided on 06/02/2026). 7. It is further submitted that in Writ Petition Nos.742 of 2026 and 743 of 2026, pursuant to the impugned notices, adjudication has already been completed and orders have been passed. By way of amendment, the petitioners have also challenged the said orders on the ground that they are without jurisdiction, being founded on consolidated notices covering multiple financial years.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ph 23 thereof, this Court observed that the facts before the Delhi High Court were distinct and related to fraudulent availment of input tax credit across subsequent years, which were materially different from the facts under consideration. 12. Similar view is taken in case of ICAD School of Learning Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Supra) this Court, following Milroc Good Earth Developers and Rite Water Solutions. 13. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that ordinarily this Court should not entertain a challenge to a show cause notice and that the petitioners ought to raise all their defences before the adjudicating authority. It is further submitted that in two of the petitions, adjudication has already....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, including ICAD School of Learning Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur. It is not brought to our notice that the judgment in Milroc Good Earth Developers (Supra) has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 17. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, DGGSTI (supra). However, the said decision in Ambika Traders (supra) has also been considered by this Court in Milroc Good Earth Developers (supra). This Court has specifically referred to and discussed paragraph No. 46 of Ambika Traders (supra), as reproduced below : "46. The nature of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....single, continuous fraudulent design that necessitates consolidation of different financial years for effective adjudication. 20. The statutory scheme under the CGST Act makes the limitation for determination of tax dependent upon the due date for furnishing the annual return for the respective financial year to which the demand relates. The limitation, therefore, runs independently for each financial year. Clubbing multiple financial years in a single show cause notice has the effect of aggregating distinct tax periods governed by separate limitation timelines, which may prejudice the assessee's right to raise year-specific defences. 21. This Court has consistently taken the view that a single show cause notice covering multiple fina....