DHANLAXMI BANK LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common issue that arises in all these writ petitions is relating to the sustainability of the notices issued under Ss. 73 and 74 of the CGST/SGST Act 2017 in the form of a composite notice for multiple assessment years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that the issues raised regarding the composite notice and order is already decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals v. The Deputy Commissioner [2025 KHC Online 467]. However, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the State of Kerala as well as the Senior Panel counsel appearing for the Central Government is that, there is no prohibition in the Act, against the issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years and the decisions rendered by the Delhi High Court upholding the validity of such notices were already upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court by dismissing the SLPs filed against the said decisions. Therefore, in the light of the above, no interference is warranted in the impugned notices issued for multiple years.

(2.) As observed above, the only question that arises for consideration is with regard to the competence of the officers concerned for issuing a composite notice under the provisions of the CGST Act for multiple assessment years. In fact, in Lakshmi Mobile (supra), this Court elaborately considered the aforesaid question, after referring to the scheme of the CGST Act, by specifically referring to various provisions in the said Act and came to a definite conclusion that such notices are unsustainable in view of the fact that, it causes serious prejudice to the tax payers for various reasons. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the Judgment rendered in Lakshmi Mobile (supra) are relevant in this regards, which reads as follows:

(3.) In Tharayil Medicals (supra) the view taken in Lakshmi Mobile (supra) was reiterated and further explained. In Tharayil Medicals, while reiterating the view expressed in Lakashmi Mobile, a reference was also made to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in RioCare India Private Limited. v. Assistant Commissioner CGST and C.Ex. & Ors. [(2025) 26 Centax 339(Bom.)], where a contrary view was taken by the said court, on the reason that such composite notice is permissible in view of the fact that the statue does not contain any prohibition in issuing the said notice. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the said decision reads as follows: