Uttam Movies vs Union of India AND ORS — HCBM10028782026

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.