Case Title: M/s Apoorva Construction Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Petition No.: Writ Petition No. 32542 of 2024 (T-RES)
Category: Procedural Validity – Common Show Cause Notice for Multiple Years
Date of Judgement: 10 December 2024
Relevant Sections: Section 73(1), Section 73(9), and Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Facts (Paras 1–2)
The petitioner, M/s Apoorva Construction Co., challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act for the financial years 2019–20 and 2020–21. The notice alleged short payment of GST. The petitioner argued that combining two different financial years into one notice was legally unsustainable since each assessment year constitutes a separate cause of action. They sought quashing of the order dated 27 August 2024 passed under Section 73(9) by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-6.7.
Question for Determination
Whether a single show cause notice covering two different financial years under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act renders the proceedings invalid and subject to quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Observations (Para 2)
The Hon’ble Court observed that although the issuance of a single show cause notice for multiple years is erroneous, the petitioner nonetheless has a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The writ court need not intervene at this stage when an effective alternative remedy exists. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance about the procedural irregularity but clarified that the issue could be adequately addressed before the appellate authority.
Judgement (Paras 2–3)
The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 within the period permissible by law. Importantly, the Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, ensuring that the time spent pursuing the writ would be excluded from limitation computation.
Further, the Court restrained the respondents from taking coercive action for a period of 30 days to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeal uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court.
Summary of Cases Referred
| S. No. | Case Name | Court / Citation | Principle / Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M/s Apoorva Construction Co. v. CTO & Ors. | Karnataka High Court (2024) | Single SCN for two FYs erroneous but not void; petitioner to pursue statutory appeal under Sec. 107 with benefit of Sec. 14 Limitation Act. |
Between Fine Lines
For GST practitioners, this ruling reiterates that while issuing a common notice for multiple years is procedurally improper, such a defect does not invalidate proceedings outright. Taxpayers must first seek redress through the appellate route under Section 107, as High Courts are unlikely to exercise writ jurisdiction where alternate remedies exist. However, relief under Section 14 of the Limitation Act safeguards the taxpayer’s right to appeal without being prejudiced by the time spent before the High Court.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
