M/S. Riocare India Private Limited vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

M/S. Riocare India Private Limited vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether a single show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 covering the period 1st July 2018 to 31st March 2023 (spanning multiple financial years) is impermissible, such that a separate show cause notice ought to have been issued for each financial year.

Court's answer

Prima facie, nothing in Section 74, and more particularly sub-section (1), of the CGST Act, 2017 prohibits the authority from issuing a notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded, or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax; at least prima facie, a notice under Section 74(1) can be issued for any period, provided it is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) of Section 74 for issuance of the order. The Court was therefore not impressed with the argument that a separate notice per financial year was mandatory.

Ratio / Principle

In the present case, there is admittedly no issue of limitation as contemplated under Section 74(10); accordingly, prima facie the Court is not satisfied that the writ petition challenging the show cause notice ought to be entertained.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner will have to face the show cause notice and can canvass all arguments before the authority concerned, including the issues raised in the present writ petition.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Colabawalla & Pooniwalla, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition by M/s. RioCare India Private Limited seeking certiorari to quash a single show cause-cum-demand notice dated 4th December 2024 issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period 1st July 2018 to 31st March 2023, and to restrain further steps pursuant thereto. The sole ground urged was that one show cause notice covering multiple financial years was impermissible and separate notices per financial year were required. The Court held, at least prima facie, that nothing in Section 74, particularly sub-section (1), prohibits issuance of a single notice for tax not/short paid, erroneously refunded, or input tax credit wrongly availed/utilised by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, for any period, so long as the notice precedes the sub-section (10) time limit by at least six months; there was admittedly no limitation issue under Section 74(10). The petitioner was directed to face the show cause notice and canvass all arguments, including those raised in the writ, before the authority concerned. Disposed of with no order as to costs.

3.wp.19381.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.19381 OF 2024

M/s. RioCare India Private Limited .. Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner CGST and C.Ex. & Ors.

.. Respondents

Mr.Virendrasinh V. Tapkir, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2025.01.08 12:25:48 +0530

Mr.Subir Kumar a/w Ashita Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 06, 2025

P. C.

1. The above Writ Petition seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the show cause-cum-demand notice dated 4^th December 2024 issued to the Petitioner under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the period 1^st July 2018 to 31^st March 2023. The other relief sought is to restrain the Respondents or prohibit them from acting further and/or taking any steps and/or act pursuant to the said impugned show cause notice.

Page 1 of 3 JANUARY 06, 2025

Utkarsh

3.wp.19381.2024.doc

2. The only ground canvassed before us by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned show cause notice relates to different financial years and therefore for each financial year a separate show cause notice ought to have been issued. One show cause notice for the period 1^st July 2018 to 31^st March 2023 was impermissible, was the argument.

3. At least prima facie we are not impressed with this argument. There is nothing in Section 74 and more particularly 74(1) which would prohibit the Authority from issuing a notice calling upon the assessee to pay tax that has not been paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or where input tax credit has been wrongly availed or utilised, by reason of fraud, or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax. At least prima facie, a notice under Section 74(1) can be issued for any period provided said notice is given at least 6 months prior to the time limit specified in sub-section (10) of Section 74 for issuance of the order.

4. In the present case, admittedly there is no issue of limitation as contemplated under Section 74(10). In these circumstances, at least prima facie we are not satisfied that this Writ

Page 2 of 3 JANUARY 06, 2025

Utkarsh

3.wp.19381.2024.doc

Petition ought to be entertained and which is challenging the show cause notice. The Petitioner will have to face the show cause notice and can canvass all arguments before the authority concerned, including the issues raised in the present Writ Petition.

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

6. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Page 3 of 3 JANUARY 06, 2025

Utkarsh