Single SCN for Multiple AYs Under GST Is Impermissible; Notices Must Be Issued for Each Assessment Year | HC
- News|Blog|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 19 October, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Veremax Technologie Services LTD. v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 332 (Karnataka)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.
-
Shankare Gowda M.N., Adv. for the Petitioner.
-
Unnikrishnan M., CGC for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had challenged the show cause notice issued by the tax department which consolidated multiple tax periods from 2017-18 to 2020-21 into single notice under Section 73 of CGST Act. It filed writ petition and it was also contended that each assessment year must be treated independently and separate show cause notices required for each assessment year under Section 73.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that the consolidation of multiple assessment years into single show cause notice contravened provisions of CGST Act and established legal precedents. The Court also noted that the principles enunciated in the judgment cited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd. (AIR 1966 SC 1350) would be directly applicable to the present case wherein it was held that where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment order can be distinctly separated and must be treated independently.
Therefore, the Court held that the impugned show cause notice was liable to be set aside and Revenue authorities were permitted to issue separate notices for each assessment year in compliance with Section 73.
List of Cases Reviewed
- M/s. Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST (W.P.No.33164 of 2023) – (para 3) followed.
- State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd. (AIR 1966 SC 1350) – (para 5) followed.
List of Cases Referred to
- M/s. Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST W.P. No. 33164 of 2023 (para 3)
- Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350 (para 3).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
