M/S GOLDEN GULLION vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS THRO. CENTRAL GOVT. — WP/1117/2026

SUMMARY: WP/1117/2026 - M/S Golden Bullion & Jakir Mahendra Kothari v. Union of India Case Details Court: Bombay High Court Bench: G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ. Date: 17 April 2026 Petitioner: M/S Golden Bullion and Jakir Mahendra Kothari Respondent: Union of India and Others (CGST/Central Excise Authorities) Core Issue Whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act 2017 covering multiple financial years, or whether each financial year requires a separate notice. Key Holding The court deferred its decision and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, finding significant conflicting precedents requiring reconsideration. The court noted conflicting views from different high courts and importantly, a speaking order from the Supreme Court in *Mathur Polymers* (7 November 2025) that dismissed the petitioner's challenge to consolidated notices. Main Arguments Petitioners' Position: Consolidated notices violate Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of CGST Act because: - Each financial year is a separate assessment unit - Limitation periods are prescribed per financial year (3-5 years) - Section 73(3)/74(3) contemplates period-wise notices, not consolidated ones Department's Position: Consolidated notices are permissible because: - Sections 73(1)/74(1) contain no express restriction on clubbing periods - Limitation periods apply independently to each financial year within a consolidated notice - Critical for fraud/ITC evasion cases involving transactions spread over multiple years Conflicting Precedents Noted 1. Milroc Good Earth Developers (Bombay) - Consolidated notices NOT permissible 2. Mathur Polymers (Delhi) - Consolidated notices permissible (upheld by Supreme Court) 3. Allahabad HC (S.A. Aromatics) - Consolidated notices permissible 4. Madras HC (Titan Company Ltd./R.A. & Co.) - Consolidated notices NOT permissible 5. Kerala HC (Tharayil Medicals) - Consolidated notices NOT permissible Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether subsection (10) controls subsection (1)'s power to issue consolidated notices 2. Whether subsection (10) per se prohibits consolidated notices 3. Effect of Section 160 (defect curing clause) on consolidated proceedings 4. Whether *Milroc* decision lays down correct law 5. Legal position under Article 141 following Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order Outcome Petitions Adjourned Pending Larger Bench Decision - Interim orders granted remain in force - Matter placed before Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench - No immediate relief granted or denied to petitioners This case is now pending before a larger bench to reconcile conflicting judicial interpretations on a significant procedural issue affecting GST assessment powers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.