One Notice, Many Years - When a Procedural Shortcut Challenges the Discipline of GST
In the structured world of GST, each financial year is treated as a separate, self-contained story. Returns are filed year-wise, liabilities are assessed year-wise, and the law itself operates through clearly defined year-wise assessment, ensuring that each year operates within its own statutory framework. This design is not accidental - it provides certainty, finality, and administrative clarity to both the taxpayer and the authorities, reinforcing the idea that each financial year carries its own independent legal identity.
Yet, in recent times, a seemingly simple but deeply significant question has begun to unsettle this settled framework: can the Department issue a single show-cause notice covering multiple financial years at once? Prima facie, this may seem like a matter of procedural convenience - an efficient way to address issues spanning several years. However, a closer examination reveals that the issue is far from routine. It touches upon fundamental aspects of GST law, including whether the concept of a "tax period" can be stretched beyond its statutory boundaries, whether limitation provisions can be indirectly diluted, and whether jurisdiction can be expanded under the guise of administrative efficiency.
What initially appeared to be a minor drafting or procedural choice has now evolved into a significant legal controversy with far-reaching consequences. Multiple High Courts have examined this issue, reflecting divergent judicial approaches, and the matter has now been considered serious enough to warrant reference to a Larger Bench. The debate, therefore, is no longer about convenience or format - it is about preserving the structural discipline of GST law and ensuring that its foundational principles are not compromised by seemingly mild shortcuts.
From Emerging Doubt to Judicial Clarity - The Bombay High Court Sets the Tone in Paras Stone Industries
The issue of issuing a single show-cause notice for multiple financial years was not born overnight; it had already surfaced in several High Court proceedings, creating uncertainty and debate. However, a clear and authoritative direction began to emerge from the Bombay High Court's decision in Paras Stone Industries v. Union of India (2026-VIL-376-BOM, dated 09.01.2026). In this case, the Court examined a show-cause notice issued in September 2023 under Section 74, which sought to cover three different financial years - 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 - within a single proceeding, thereby directly raising the core issue of whether such consolidation is legally sustainable.
While deciding the matter, the Bombay High Court did not approach the issue in isolation. It drew strength from its earlier binding precedents, particularly Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India (2025-VIL-1081-BOM, dated 09.10.2025) and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. (2025-VIL-1378-BOM, dated 28.11.2025), where similar questions had already been examined. Building upon this consistent line of reasoning, the Court adopted a firm and unequivocal stance: the GST framework does not permit the clubbing of multiple financial years into a single show-cause notice. Importantly, this conclusion was not based on procedural preference, but on a close reading of the statutory scheme itself.
The Court highlighted that the entire structure of Sections 73 and 74 is anchored in year-wise limitation. The outer time limit for passing an adjudication order is linked to the due date of the annual return for the relevant financial year, and the show-cause notice must precede this deadline by at least three months. This demonstrates that each financial year carries its own independent timeline, and limitation is not merely procedural but defines the structure of proceedings. Accordingly, each year constitutes a distinct tax period that must be dealt with separately. Any attempt to combine multiple years into a single notice blurs these statutory boundaries and renders such proceedings jurisdictionally unsustainable. This reasoning assumes greater significance when one considers that Sections 73 and 74 operate in distinct fields - one dealing with non-fraud cases and the other with allegations of fraud, suppression, or wilful misstatement.
When Authority Ends - Why a Multi-Year Notice Crosses the Line of Jurisdiction
The Court held that combining multiple financial years into a single notice exceeds the statutory limits and results in jurisdictional overreach. In other words, the authority issuing such a notice steps outside the legal boundaries defined by law. The concern becomes even more pronounced when different financial years may be subject to different statutory provisions - some falling under Section 73 and others under Section 74. In such cases, a composite notice may effectively blur this distinction and enable the assessing authority to invoke the more stringent provisions of Section 74 across the board. Such an approach would amount to a colourable exercise of power, permitting the authority to bypass statutory safeguards relating to limitation and the nature of the offence.
The Court also addressed an important argument often raised by the Department - that the taxpayer should not approach the High Court directly and must instead pursue the appellate remedy available under the statute. Rejecting this contention, the Court reaffirmed a well-settled legal principle: when the very initiation of proceedings is without jurisdiction, the existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.If the foundation itself is invalid, the law does not require the taxpayer to exhaust the entire appellate process before seeking relief.
Through this reasoning, the Court reinforced a fundamental and far-reaching principle: Ease of administration cannot override statutory limits. It is equally important to recognise the practical prejudice caused to the assessee. A consolidated notice compressing multiple years into a single proceeding may deprive the taxpayer of adequate time and opportunity to furnish year-specific explanations, particularly when statutory timelines require the notice to precede adjudication within tightly defined limits. Such compression affects procedural fairness and undermines the assessee's ability to respond meaningfully. Efficiency in procedure cannot override statutory limits. Where the law draws clear boundaries, they must be respected.
One Jurisdiction, One Rule - Why Local High Court Decisions Must Prevail
Another significant aspect of the decision lies in how the Bombay High Court addressed conflicting views expressed by other High Courts. The Revenue attempted to rely on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mathur Polymers v. Union of India (2025-VIL-909-DEL, dated 26.08.2025), where a contrary view had been taken, permitting the issuance of consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years. This created a classic situation of divergent judicial opinions on the same legal issue.
However, the Bombay High Court firmly rejected this argument and clarified an essential principle of judicial discipline. It held that authorities functioning within a particular State are bound by the decisions of their own jurisdictional High Court. This binding nature becomes even stronger when the jurisdictional High Court subsequently delivers a judgment on the issue. In such cases, reliance on decisions of other High Courts - even if persuasive - cannot override the authority of the local High Court.
By reaffirming this principle, the Court ensured that tax administration remains consistent, predictable, and disciplined. It prevents confusion at the field level and avoids situations in which authorities selectively rely on favourable judgments from other jurisdictions. The message is clear: certainty in law comes not from convenience, but from adherence to judicial hierarchy and discipline.
Clarity vs. Contradiction - When High Courts Speak in Different Voices
Even as clarity began to emerge from the Bombay High Court, along with similar views from the Madras, Karnataka, and Kerala High Courts, the legal position remained far from uniform. A different line of reasoning began to gain ground in other jurisdictions, leading to a growing divergence in judicial thought. What seemed to be a settled issue in one part of the country began to take a different shape elsewhere.
Courts such as the Delhi High Court, in cases like Mathur Polymers v. Union of India ( 2025-VIL-909-DEL, dated 26.08.2025) and Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner ( 2025-VIL-806-DEL, dated 29.07.2025) , adopted a more flexible approach. They held that consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years may be permissible, particularly where transactions are interconnected or form a continuous pattern spanning years. According to this view, strict separation of years should not prevent effective addressing of complex tax issues.
This divergence was further reinforced when the Allahabad High Court, in S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 SCC Online All 191, dated 20.01.2026) , aligned with this broader interpretation. As a result, the legal landscape became divided, with two parallel schools of thought emerging - one emphasising strict adherence to year-wise discipline, and the other allowing flexibility in the interest of practical administration. The issue, therefore, has clearly moved beyond isolated judgments and has now evolved into a significant judicial conflict requiring authoritative resolution.
When Conflict Demands Resolution - The Defining Moment in Rollmet LLP
It is in the midst of this growing judicial conflict that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rollmet LLP v. Union of India (2026-VIL-377-BOM, dated 17.04.2026) assumes great significance. The Court was not dealing with a single dispute, but with a batch of petitions filed by multiple assessees, all of whom had challenged the validity of consolidated show-cause notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST law. The issue, therefore, came before the Court in a comprehensive manner, reflecting the controversy's widespread nature. Significantly, while the earlier decision in Paras Stone Industries was delivered in a concise judgment of just eight pages, the judgment in Rollmet LLP runs into sixty-six pages - clearly indicating the depth, complexity, and evolving nature of the controversy.
The petitioners strongly relied on earlier decisions such as Milroc Good Earth Developers, Paras Stone Industries, and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd ., all of which had consistently held that combining multiple financial years into a single notice is not permissible. Their argument was clear: such notices are not merely irregular - they are inherently without jurisdiction, as they violate the fundamental structure of GST law, which treats each financial year as a separate unit.
On the other hand, the Department raised significant legal issues that, in its submission, deserve careful consideration, including reliance on Supreme Court developments. It was contended that there is no legislative intent to confine the authority of the proper officer to a specific financial year or to a single return period. Instead, the statutory framework of Sections 73 and 74, when read holistically, permits a broader exercise of jurisdiction in appropriate cases.The Department presented a wider interpretation of the statute, arguing that Sections 73(1) and 74(1), read with sub-sections (2) and (3), allow issuance of notices for “any period” and do not expressly prohibit consolidation of multiple financial years. This interpretation draws strength from the language of sub-sections (2) and (3), which refer to “any period” as well as “such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1)”, thereby indicating a conscious legislative choice to employ expansive terminology. The Department further contended that sub-section (10) of Sections 73 and 74, which prescribes the limitation period for passing an adjudication order, operates in a distinct field and does not control or restrict the issuance of a show cause notice under sub-sections (1) to (3). To read such a restriction into sub-section (1), merely because sub-section (10) provides a timeline for adjudication, would amount to imposing an unwarranted limitation not contemplated by the statute. In this view, there is no statutory embargo on clubbing multiple financial years into a single notice, and such consolidation is presented not as an excess of jurisdiction, but as a permissible and practical exercise of statutory power.
Structure vs. Flexibility - The Real Battle Within GST Law
The controversy highlighted by Rollmet LLP brings to the surface a deeper interpretational divide within GST law - one that goes beyond the mechanics of show-cause notices and touches the very design of the statute. At its core, the debate reflects two competing approaches. One approachtreats GST as a strictly structured, period-based system in which each financial year is an independent and self-contained unit, requiring proceedings to adhere to that discipline. The opposing approach,however, adopts a more flexible and pragmatic lens. It suggests that the statute, by using expressions such as “any period” and by structuring Sections 73 and 74 in a manner that does not expressly prohibit consolidation, permits a broader exercise of jurisdiction in appropriate cases. From this perspective, limitation provisions - particularly sub-section (10) - are seen as governing the timeline for adjudication rather than restricting the scope of issuance of show cause notices. Accordingly, in cases involving continuous transactions, interconnected arrangements, or allegations spanning multiple years, a consolidated notice is viewed as a practical and legally sustainable mechanism that prioritises substance over procedural segmentation. At the same time, the opposing view cautions that such flexibility, if unchecked, risks diluting the statutory discipline embedded in the GST framework, particularly the year-wise structure of limitation and assessment. The tension, therefore, is not merely interpretational - it reflects a fundamental question: whether GST should be administered as a system of strict temporal compartments or as a law capable of accommodating broader factual realities. The answer to this question will ultimately shape the contours of jurisdiction, limitation, and procedural integrity under the GST regime.
This concern is further reinforced by the view that GST is built on a carefully designed framework where certainty, clarity, and limitation timelines are crucial. If multiple years are combined into a single proceeding, it may blur these boundaries and create uncertainty regarding jurisdiction and limitation. Therefore, this debate is not merely about the interpretation of words - it reflects a deeper tension between preserving the integrity of the legal framework and enabling effective tax enforcement. The real challenge lies in striking the right balance between legal certainty and administrative practicality, so that neither the structure of the law is compromised nor its effective implementation is hindered.
When Courts Pause to Reflect - The Call for an Authoritative Verdict
Confronted with sharply divergent judicial views, the Bombay High Court in Rollmet LLP chose a path of careful judicial introspection rather than rushing to a final conclusion. The Court acknowledged that, under normal circumstances, it would be bound by its earlier coordinate bench decision in Milroc Good Earth Developers , which had already taken a clear view against consolidated notices. However, the Court also recognised that the issue had now evolved beyond earlier precedents, with the Department raising substantial legal arguments that deserved deeper examination.
A key factor influencing this approach was the Department's reliance on developments before the Supreme Court of India. Specifically, reference was made to the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions in Mathur Polymers (2025-VIL-97-SC, order dated 07.11.2025) and Ambika Traders (2025-VIL-118-SC, order dated 01.09.2025), where the contrary view permitting consolidated notices had not been interfered with. Although dismissal of an SLP does not amount to a binding declaration of law, it adds a layer of complexity and makes the issue less straightforward than before.
In light of these developments and the clear divergence of opinions across multiple High Courts, the Bombay High Court concluded that the matter had reached a stage where an authoritative and final determination was necessary. Accordingly, it directed that the issue be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for the constitution of a Larger Bench. This step reflects judicial maturity and discipline - recognising that, when legal uncertainty deepens, the solution lies not in fragmented rulings but in a clear and unified pronouncement that settles the law.
Beyond Technicalities - The Deeper Question About the Soul of GST Law
What makes this entire controversy truly significant is that it goes far beyond a mere procedural issue. At its core, the debate raises fundamental questions about the very nature and design of GST law. Is GST a strictly year-wise system, or does it permit a broader, holistic examination of transactions across years?
The issue also highlights the true role of limitation provisions under GST. Are these provisions concerned only with setting time limits for issuing notices and completing adjudication? Or do they go a step further and shape the very structure of proceedings, requiring that each financial year be treated separately even at the stage of issuing a show-cause notice? The answer to this question has a direct bearing on how far the Department can stretch its powers while initiating proceedings.
Ultimately, this is a classic question of tax jurisprudence - one that requires a careful balance between two competing principles. On the one hand lies the need for certainty, structure, and discipline in the law; on the other, the need for practicality and effective tax administration. The resolution of this issue will not only determine the fate of consolidated notices but also define how GST law is to be understood and applied in the years to come.
At the Crossroads of Structure and Flexibility - GST Awaits Its Final Balance
What makes the situation particularly interesting is that both sides of the argument carry merit. The view favouring year-wise separation protects certainty, clarity, and the integrity of limitation provisions. On the other hand, the view supporting consolidation highlights efficiency and the need to manage complex, multi-year transactions effectively. The law, in essence, is trying to find its equilibrium between these competing considerations - ensuring that neither rigidity nor excessive flexibility disturbs the system.Ultimately, the issue is not merely procedural format, but safeguarding the statutory boundaries between Sections 73 and 74, ensuring that limitation is not indirectly extended and that jurisdiction is exercised strictly within the contours defined by law.
With the matter now before a Larger Bench, the final word is awaited - but the direction of the debate is already clear.
CAclubindia
