The Tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court in Chimney Hills and the Delhi High Court in Mathur Polymers to uphold consolidated notices, while holding that a GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A difference reflected in returns does not amount to suppression.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has rejected the challenge to a consolidated show cause notice and order covering July 2017 to March 2022, but set aside the invocation of Section 74 and directed fresh determination under Section 73 through the deeming route in Section 75(2) [RLCR 7 Super Market v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh & Ors].
The Bench of Jatinder Pal Singh (Judicial Member) and Pradeep Kumar Goel (Technical Member) held that neither Section 74(2) nor 74(10), nor any other provision, requires a notice to be issued financial-year wise. So long as the entire period falls within limitation, clubbing years does not prejudice the noticee, and the appeal period runs from communication of the order.
The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court's Division Bench ruling in Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society, the Bombay High Court's reference order in Rollmet LLP v. Union of India, and the Delhi High Court's ruling in Mathur Polymers v. Union of India (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.11.2025), as well as earlier GSTAT Kolkata and Delhi decisions, to hold that consolidation is a matter of procedural form absent demonstrated prejudice.
On Section 74, the Tribunal held that the words "to evade tax" require positive intent. The notice did not allege how the appellant committed fraud or suppressed facts; all ITC was declared in returns on which the audit itself was based, and the 3B–2A difference was always visible. The Section 74 demand and penalty were set aside, the matter remanded on merits, and interest held payable on tax ultimately found due.
2026-juristway.com-3019-GSTAT(Chandigarh)-GST | GSTAT, Chandigarh | 16.10.2026
