Uttam Movies vs Union of India AND ORS — HCBM10028782026

Due Admission - 1

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam

Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Suman ShyamView PDF

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. SatheView PDF

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. SatheView PDF

Summary of Uttam Movies v. Union of India Case: Writ Petition (ST) No. 1698 of 2026 (Uttam Movies v. Union of India and Others) Court: High Court of Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Judges: G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ. Date: 17 April 2026 Outcome Petitions referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration. The Court has NOT decided the petitions on merits but instead referred five critical questions of law to a larger bench, noting a significant conflict of judicial opinion across High Courts on whether consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years are legally permissible under the GST Act. Key Issue Whether GST authorities can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73/74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or whether separate notices must be issued for each financial year. The Cleavage of Opinion The judgment identifies a sharp split in judicial precedent: Against Consolidated Notices: - Division Bench in *Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India* (Bombay High Court) - Divisions Benches at Nagpur in *Paras Stone Industries* and *Rite Water Solutions* - Kerala, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts For Consolidated Notices: - Delhi High Court in *Mathur Polymers v. Union of India* and *Ambika Traders v. Commissioner* - Allahabad High Court in *S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India* Five Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether sub-section (10) (limitation period) controls sub-section (1) (issuance of notice), creating an embargo on consolidated notices 2. Whether sub-section (10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices 3. Effect of Section 160 (curing defects) on consolidated notices 4. Whether *Milroc's* holding that officers lack authority to club years is correct law 5. Legal position following Supreme Court's dismissal of Special Leave Petition in *Mathur Polymers* Court's Preliminary View (Non-Binding) The judges expressed a leaning toward allowing consolidated notices based on: - Plain language of Sections 73(3) and 74(3) using terms "for any period" and "for such periods" - Distinct separation between notice-issuance provisions (sub-sections 1-4) and limitation provisions (sub-section 10) - Nature of Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraud cases, which often involve interconnected transactions spanning multiple years - Supreme Court's dismissal of special leave petitions affirming Delhi High Court's pro-consolidation view - GST Policy Wing clarification (16 September 2025) confirming each financial year's limitation applies separately even in consolidated notices Status - All interim orders previously passed in these petitions shall continue until the Larger Bench decides - Petitions remain pending before the Larger Bench - No final relief granted or denied to Uttam Movies or other petitioners at this stage This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. SatheView PDF

At 3.00 P.M.

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni , Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. SatheView PDF

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. SatheView PDF

Case filed