The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed its position that a single show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years is without jurisdiction — and has gone further, expressly holding that the Delhi High Court's contrary view (permitting composite multi-year SCNs in cases of alleged fraudulent ITC) does not bind authorities working within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, even though the Delhi HC's judgment in Mathur Polymers was upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP on dismissal in limine. The ruling, by Justice Anil Pansare and Justice Nivedita Mehta in Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2026 (Mehadia & Sons, decided 28.08.2026), also notes that a Larger Bench reference on this very question is already pending before the Bombay HC.
The SCN in question was issued on 24.04.2025 under Section 73 of the CGST Act covering financial years 2021-22 to 2023-24 in a single notice, alleging suppression of taxable value and short payment of CGST across all three years. The petitioner challenged the very issuance of the SCN on the ground that consolidation of multiple financial years in a single notice is not permissible under the statutory scheme.
The court's reasoning rests on the fundamental architecture of the GST assessment framework. Tax periods are defined by reference to annual returns, with each financial year being a distinct assessment year. Limitation periods run separately for each year under Sections 73(10) and 74(10) — a specific number of years from the due date for furnishing the annual return for that financial year. If a single SCN could cover multiple years, it would collapse different time periods, different limitation dates and different factual matrices into one proceeding, preventing the taxpayer from responding year-by-year and violating the statute's explicit year-wise structure. The Bombay HC had previously held this position in M/s Milroc Good Earth Developers (Goa bench, 09.10.2025) and reiterated it in Rite Water Solutions (28.11.2025).
The Revenue cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Mathur Polymers (26.08.2025) — which had held that in cases of fraudulent ITC availed across several years, a consolidated notice may in fact be necessary to establish the illegal modality — and pointed out that this judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court when the SLP filed by the taxpayer was dismissed. The Bombay HC rejected this argument in precise terms: an SLP dismissed in limine (without reasons) is not a merger with the Delhi HC judgment on merits, and does not have the effect of overruling the Bombay HC's own contrary decisions. The Delhi HC's view may bind tribunals and authorities within Delhi's jurisdiction, but Bombay HC's subsequent contrary view binds authorities within Maharashtra. The SCN was quashed with liberty to re-issue year-wise notices under Section 73 if there is no other legal impediment. The pending Larger Bench reference on this issue will ultimately resolve the inter-HC conflict.
2026-juristway.com-2364-HC(Bombay)-GST | High Court of Bombay | Writ Petition No. 4844 of 2026 | 28.08.2026