Case Details: Speedways Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 39 Centax 178 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anil L. Pansare & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
- Shri H. N. Deshmukh, Adv., for the Petitioner.
- Mrs Ketki Jaltare-Vaidya, Adv., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and the Maharashtra GST Act, alleging suppression of taxable value, short payment of CGST and availment of ineligible input tax credit (ITC) over multiple financial years through a single, consolidated notice. It was contended that clubbing different tax periods in one composite notice was impermissible under the statutory scheme of GST. The petitioner relied upon the decisions of the High Court of Bombay in Milroc Good Earth Developers 2025 (104) G.S.T.L. 45 (Bom.) and Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. [Writ Petition No. 466 of 2025, dated 28-11-2025], wherein it had been held that where the authority lacks jurisdiction to undertake a composite assessment for different tax periods or assessment years, the formality of responding to such a show cause notice ought not to be insisted upon. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years or tax periods while issuing a show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act. It observed that the GST scheme is structured around annual returns for each financial year and that the statutory time limit for demand and recovery runs separately for each year from the due date of the annual return or the date of the erroneous return. The Court further held that issuance of a single show cause notice covering multiple years would aggregate different due dates and distinct limitation periods, which the statute does not permit, and that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) fix the time limit for issuance of assessment orders year-wise. It concluded that such consolidation collapses separate statutory timelines and grounds, prejudices the taxpayer’s ability to respond year by year, and violates the statute’s explicit year-wise framework; accordingly, the impugned show cause notice was quashed and set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Godavaridevi Saraf Tumsar — 1978 (2) E.L.T. 624 (Bom.) — Followed [Para 10]
- Mathur Polymers v. Union of India — (2025) 35 Centax 150 (Del.) = 2025 (103) G.S.T.L. 72 (Del.) — Referred [Para 6]
- Mathur Polymers vs. Union of India — (2026) 38 Centax 135 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 7]
- Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India — (2025) 36 Centax 97 (Bom.) = 2025 (104) G.S.T.L. 45 (Bom.), — Followed [Paras 3, 9, 12, 14]
- Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner — Writ Petition No. 466 of 2025, dated 28-11-2025 — Followed [Paras 5, 9, 12, 14]
