M/S. GOLDEN BULLION vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS THRO. CENTRA GOVT. — HCBM10031532026

SUMMARY Case: Batch of Writ Petitions challenging consolidated GST show-cause notices covering multiple financial years Petitioner: M/S. Golden Bullion and Jakin Mahendra Kothari (and others in consolidated batch) Respondent: Union of India, Additional Commissioner of Central CGST and CEX, Joint Commissioner of Central CGST and CEX, Mumbai South Commissionerate (and others) Court: Bombay High Court (Division Bench - Judges G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe) Date: 17 April 2026 --- OUTCOME Petitions REFERRED to Larger Bench – The Division Bench did NOT decide the substantive issue on merits. Instead, finding conflicting High Court judgments and significant legal issues requiring consideration, the Court referred five questions of law to a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution. Interim Relief: All existing interim orders continue until the Larger Bench decides the issues. --- KEY ISSUE Whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017. --- LEGAL CONFLICT The Court identified a split in judicial opinion: Against consolidated notices (Petitioners' position): - Bombay HC (Goa Bench): *Milroc Good Earth Developers* – held consolidated notices invalid - Nagpur Bench: *Paras Stone Industries, Rite Water Solutions* – followed Milroc - High Courts of Kerala, Madras, Karnataka: Similar view In favor of consolidated notices (Department's position): - Delhi HC: *Mathur Polymers, Ambika Traders* – held consolidated notices permissible - Allahabad HC: *S.A. Aromatics* – allowed consolidated notices - Supreme Court (dismissing SLP in *Mathur Polymers*, 7 Nov 2025): Found no ground to interfere with Delhi HC's decision --- COURT'S ANALYSIS Arguments FOR Petitioners (Against Consolidated Notices): 1. Sections 73(10) & 74(10) prescribe year-wise limitation (3 & 5 years respectively) 2. Definition of "tax period" links to return-filing period (annual/monthly) 3. Each financial year is a separate assessment unit 4. Consolidated notices breach statutory limitation scheme 5. Precedent of *Caltex* case supports year-specific assessment Arguments FOR Department (Allowing Consolidated Notices): 1. Sections 73(3) & 74(3) use phrase "for any period" – not restricted to single financial year 2. Language distinguishes between assessment (return-based) and adjudication (dispute-based) 3. ITC fraud cases require analysis of connected transactions over multiple years 4. Limitation applies to passing orders, not issuance of notices 5. Supreme Court dismissal in *Mathur Polymers* supports permissibility 6. GST Policy Wing clarification (16 Sept 2025) confirms consolidated notices valid within limitation --- DIVISION BENCH'S TENTATIVE VIEW The Court expressed sympathy for the Department's position: - Plain reading of Sections 73(1), (3) & 74(1), (3) permits consolidated notices - Sub-section (10) prescribes limitation for passing orders, not issuing notices - These are "compartmentalized" and independent statutory concepts - Adjudication differs from assessment – dispute-based, not return-based - ITC fraud scheme contemplates multi-year transaction analysis However, the Court acknowledged significant issues requiring larger bench consideration, including: - Interpretation of "machinery provisions" per Supreme Court principles - Application of Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order under Article 141 --- FIVE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH 1. Whether sub-section (10) controls/restricts issuance of consolidated notices under sub-section (1)? 2. Whether sub-section (10) per se prohibits consolidated notices? 3. Effect of Section 160 (protection of notices) on consolidated show-cause notices? 4. Whether *Milroc* This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.