Date & Year of Judgment 

Full case reference / citation: 

Other Similar Cases

M/s. Bhawana Steel Traders Versus Joint Director, DGGI, Nagpur and anr.Dated:- 27-02-2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 7960/2025

M/s. Hakikatrai and Sons, Akola Versus Union of India and Ors.Dated:- 27-02-2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 6118/2025

M/s. Shree Balaji Traders, Dabki Road, Akola, Through Proprietor Mr. Pratik G. Tiwari Versus The GST Commissioner, Nagpur-II, GST Commissionerate, ...MoreDated:- 27-02-2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2026

Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) & Anr. v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile AccessoriesW.A. No. 258 of 2025Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:9253High Court of Kerala
Titan Company Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr. P. Manivannan Versus The Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise

1. Main issue involved

2. Sections and rules discussed

• Section 73 and Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 (composite notices/orders for multiple years) 
• Limitation scheme under Section 74 (year-wise end termini for adjudication linked to due date of annual return; prejudice if clubbed) (as extracted from Lakshmi Mobile) 

3. Facts of the case

4. Appellant’s (Petitioners’) submission

• The legality of composite SCNs/orders for multiple years already stands decided by the Kerala High Court (DB) in:

M/s. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories v. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and
Tharayil Medicals v. The Deputy Commissioner [2025 KHC Online 467]; hence, composite notices are unsustainable. 

5. Defence submission (State/Department)

• There is no express prohibition in the Act against composite notices for multiple years. 
• Delhi High Court decisions supporting composite SCNs were allegedly “upheld” since SLPs filed against them were dismissed by the Supreme Court; therefore, no interference is warranted. 

6. Analysis and finding of the Court

• The Court noted that the only question is the competence/sustainability of issuing composite SCNs for multiple assessment years under the CGST Act. 
• The Court relied on the reasoning in Lakshmi Mobile that GST adjudication timelines are year-specific, and a consolidated SCN can curtail the statutory time available to the assessee and distort the limitation framework—thereby causing prejudice. 
• On the “SLP dismissal” defence, the Court held that non-speaking dismissal of SLP does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 and therefore cannot be used to take a view contrary to binding DB precedent of the same High Court. 
• The Court further noted that although Lakshmi Mobile is under challenge before the Supreme Court and notice is issued, absence of stay means the DB decision remains binding on a Single Judge. 

7. Most Important Observations of the Court

Para 8- On Powers of GST officer to issue combined SCN

However, even while accepting the contention of the leaned Special Government Pleader regarding the scheme of the Act as referred to above, it is to be noted that, that by itself would not enable the officers concerned to invoke the powers under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act by issuing composite notice for multiple years. In Lakhsmi Mobile (supra)and Tharayil Medicals (surpa), the prejudices that are caused to the tax payers in various ways due to issuance of the composite notices have been dealt with in detail and also taking note of the fact that, there is no provision in the CGST Act that enables the officers concerned to issue a composite notice, findings were entered into by this Court, interfering with such notices and order, holding that such notices/orders are beyond the powers of the officers concerned. After carefully going through the observations and the reasons mentioned in those judgments, I do not find any scope for a different view. More over, the said decision is also binding upon this Court.

Para 9- On SLP dismissed by Supreme Court

When it comes to the question of the decisions rendered by the High Court of Delhi, which is Vallabh Textiles v. Additional/Joint Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate and Others [WP(C) No.13855 of 2024] which was followed again by the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North [2025 (8) TMI 315-Delhi High Court] and the orders passed in SLP upholding the said decisions, it is to be noted that the orders passed in the said SLPs were not speaking orders, so as to treat those as precedents. In State of Orissa and Another v. Dhirendra Sundar Das and Others [(2019) 6 SCC 270], it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that an order dismissing the SLP in limine simply implies that the case was not worthy of examination by the Supreme Court for a reason other than merits of the case. It was further held that such in limine dismissal at threshold without indicating any reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or binding precedent under Article 141. This is the reiteration of the legal proposition declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in Khoday Distilaries Ltd. And Others v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Kollengal [2019 KHC 6265], Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala [AIR 2000 SC 2587], and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others, [1986 (4) SCC 146].

Para 10- On SLP order does not deal with merits of the case

On going through the orders passed in the SLP, it can be seen that no detailed discussion with regard to the merits of the findings or the questions of law are made by the Honourable Supreme Court and hence, I am of the view that the fact that the view taken by the Delhi High Court was not interfered with by the Honourable Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP, by itself cannot be a ground to take a different view in this case, than the one taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Mobile (surpa) and Tharayil Medicals (surpa).

8. Judgment of the Court (operative outcome)

• The writ petitions were allowed by quashing the impugned notices and orders issued for multiple years, with liberty to issue fresh notices separately for relevant assessment years and complete proceedings as per law. 
• The Court clarified that the period during which the writ petitions remained pending (from filing till judgment) can be excluded while computing limitation for issuing notices/completing proceedings. 

9. CA BTA insights (practical takeaways for GST litigation)

Immediate jurisdictional objection: If SCN/OIO club multiple financial years under s.73/s.74, raise a threshold ground that the notice is unsustainable as per Kerala HC line (Lakshmi Mobile, Tharayil Medicals, and this judgment). 
Neutralise “SLP dismissed” argument: This judgment gives a direct answer—non-speaking SLP dismissal is not Article 141 law, hence cannot override binding intra-court precedent. 
Prejudice framing: Emphasise how composite SCN compresses the effective time and distorts the year-wise limitation/adjudication termini under GST—this is the doctrinal fulcrum. 
Post-quash compliance strategy: Be prepared for fresh year-wise SCNs; track limitation carefully because the Court allows exclusion of writ pendency for computing limitation. 

Similar / related judgments and counter-view landscape

• M/s. Lakshmi Mobile Accessories v. Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) [2025 KHC OnLine 149](DB) 
• Tharayil Medicals v. The Deputy Commissioner [2025 KHC Online 467] (DB) 

• Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 2587 
• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others (1986) 4 SCC 146 
• Khoday Distilaries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. (as cited in the judgment) 

• Delhi High Court decisions upholding composite SCNs (relied upon by department), with SLPs dismissed (non-speaking)