Case Details: Milroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of India (2025) 36 Centax 97 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Bharati Dangre & Ashish S. Chavan, JJ.
- S/Shri Bharat Raichandani, Vibhav Amonkar, Raj Chodankar & Nikhil Angle, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Ms Asha Desai, Standing Counsel & Shri Shubham Priolkar, Addl. Govt. Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners, construction service developers, were issued composite show cause notices under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, alleging GST short-payment and ineligible ITC across multiple financial years. The notices consolidated tax and ITC demands for several years into one single proceedings. The petitioners challenged these notices on the ground that the GST law requires tax period-wise and year-wise assessment, along with separate limitation for each financial year, and therefore issuance of a consolidated notice was beyond jurisdiction. They argued that bunching multiple years frustrated the statutory limitation framework and deprived them of year-specific rebuttal.
High Court Held
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) held that issuing composite SCNs for multiple financial years is impermissible under the GST framework. The Court emphasised that Sections 73 and 74 contemplate year-wise determination of tax, and the limitation period is linked to the annual return for each financial year. Consolidation of several years into a single notice disrupts this mechanism and amounts to jurisdictional overreach. Since the authority lacked statutory power to bunch multiple years into one SCN, the Court quashed the consolidated notices as invalid and without jurisdiction.
List of Cases Cited
- Bangalore Golf Club v. Asstt. CCTes (Enforcement) — (2025) 26 Centax 441 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 8]
- Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Asstt. Commissioner — (2024) 23 Centax 190 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 8]
- R.A. and Co v. Additional Commissioner — 2025 (101) G.S.T.L. 21 (Madras) = (2025) 33 Centax 14 (Mad.) — Followed [Para 8]
- Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner — (2024) 15 Centax 118 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 8]
- RioCare India Pvt. Ltd v. Asstt. Commissioner, CGST and C.Ex. — 2025 (95) G.S.T.L. 39 (Bombay) = (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 9]
- Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner — 2025 (101) G.S.T.L. 64 (Delhi) = (2025) 33 Centax 189 (Del.) — Distinguished [Para 9]
- Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, SGST Department — (2025) 29 Centax 395 (Ker.) — Referred [Para 21]
- State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Caltex (India) Ltd. — AIR 1966 SC 1350 — Referred [Para 22]
