Raj Jaggi
Quick Summary
A Procedural Question with High-Stakes Consequences The Gauhati High Court judgment in M/s Tata Projects Limited, Assam v. Union of India and 4 Others, 2026-VIL-568-GAU, dated 08.06.2026, is an important ruling on a recurring procedural issue under GST law. The judgment was delivered in a batch o
Daily Limit Reached
You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Articles
Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access
Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
- No Ads
- WhatsApp Broadcasts
- Daily E-Newsletter
- Unlimited Articles Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits
Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.
FAQ :
Yes, the Gauhati High Court has held that the CGST Act does not expressly prohibit a proper officer from issuing a consolidated show-cause notice covering more than one financial year.
Yes, a consolidated order can be passed for multiple financial years, provided that the limitation requirements for each individual period are independently satisfied.
No, the judgment clarifies that consolidation does not override statutory timelines. The limitation period for each financial year must still be independently met, and a time-barred year cannot be included in a consolidated notice.
The doctrine of severability means that if a consolidated notice includes a financial year that is time-barred, that specific year can be separated (severed) from the rest of the notice, preventing the entire notice from failing.
No, the court distinguished between assessment proceedings and demand adjudication proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. Demand proceedings are adversarial and adjudicatory, not part of the assessment process.
Taxpayers should not solely challenge a notice for being consolidated. Instead, they should assess if the notice is vague, if period-specific details are missing, if the limitation period has expired for any year, or if natural justice has been violated.
CAclubindia
