Karnataka High Court: Show Cause Notices Under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act Are Not Financial Year-Specific



Share on:

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling for Goods and Services Tax (GST) litigation, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that show-cause notices (SCNs) issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) are not restricted to a single financial year.

The division bench, comprising Justices SG Pandit and KV Aravind, overturned a previous single-judge decision that had declared common show-cause notices spanning multiple financial years as impermissible. The Court ruled that tax authorities are well within their rights to issue notices covering multiple periods, providing much-needed operational clarity for both the Revenue and taxpayers.

Background of the Case
The dispute arose when the Revenue issued a show-cause notice to the respondents under Section 74 of the CGST Act, which deals with tax evasion involving fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The notice covered the extended period from July 2017 to March 2023.

The respondents challenged the notice before the High Court, arguing that Sections 73 (which deals with non-fraudulent tax discrepancies) and 74 are financial year-specific. Consequently, they argued that a single show-cause notice encompassing a period spanning multiple financial years was impermissible. A single judge initially ruled in favor of the respondents, after which the Revenue appealed to the Division Bench.

The High Court’s Ruling
Upon reviewing the matter, the Division Bench evaluated the legislative intent behind the CGST provisions. The Court observed that the sections consciously employ the broad expression “any period.”
Highlighting the distinction between "any period" and "tax period," the bench noted:

"The expression ‘any period’ is not defined under the Act and cannot be equated with ‘tax period.’ A ‘tax period’ denotes the period for which a return is required to be furnished, which may be monthly or annual."

The Court concluded that the proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 were never intended by the legislature to be confined to a single financial year. Therefore, a common show-cause notice addressing discrepancies or tax evasions across multiple financial years remains legally valid.

Addressing the Jurisdictional Contention
During the proceedings, the respondents contended that clubbing multiple financial years artificially inflates the quantum of tax, shifting the pecuniary jurisdiction to a higher-ranking officer.
The High Court dismissed this argument, asserting that an assessee has no inherent right to choose the Adjudicating Authority. Furthermore, the bench stated that consolidating periods causes no prejudice to the taxpayer, as the statutory safeguards, available remedies, and the methodology for tax determination remain unchanged.

The Court ultimately restored the show-cause notices issued by the Revenue. However, it granted the respondents the liberty to approach the appropriate appellate authority, allowing them to contest the matter on its merits without raising the plea of limitation.

Discription: In a significant ruling for Goods and Services Tax litigation, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that show-cause notices issued under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, are not restricted to a single financial year. A division bench comprising Justices SG Pandit and KV Aravind overturned a prior single-judge decision.

The Court ruled that the statutory use of the term "any period" allows tax authorities to issue a single, common notice covering multiple financial years. Furthermore, the bench rejected arguments that such clubbing improperly alters pecuniary jurisdiction or prejudices the assessee. It affirmed that taxpayers' legal safeguards and remedies remain fully intact. Consequently, the Court restored the show-cause notices while granting respondents the liberty to approach the appellate authority, bringing much-needed operational clarity to GST enforcement, compliance, and ongoing litigation across the country.