Ms Mangal Entertainment vs Union of India — HCBM10037692026

Case under Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section Section 16, 74, 107, 122. Status: Pronouncement Of Judgement. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.

Pronouncement Of Judgement Next hearing 22-Apr-2026 this date has passed

CNR: HCBM010037692026

e-Filing Number

17-01-2026

Filing Number

WP/2202/2026

Filing Date

22-Jan-2026

Judge

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

Coram

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

Bench Type

Division

Category

INDIRECT TAXES ( 17 )

Sub-Category

GST Goods and Services Tax ( 100 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section Section 16, 74, 107, 122
Goods and Services Tax Act (Maharashtra)
Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act
Constitution of India

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Ms Mangal Entertainment

    Adv. Abhishek Rastogi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Union of India

  2. 2.Joint Commissioner

  3. 3.Principal Commissioner of CGST and CX, Mumbai East

  4. 4.Commissioner Appeals II of CGST and CX Mumbai

Case History

  1. 22-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jul-2026

    Due Admission - 1

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

  3. 22-Apr-2026

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

  4. 17-Apr-2026

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

  5. 17-Apr-2026

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

    Summary of Ms. Mangal Entertainment Case This is a batch of consolidated writ petitions before the Bombay High Court addressing whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73/74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Case Outcome Petitions referred to a Larger Bench for decision on questions of law. The court did not allow or dismiss the petitions but instead identified significant legal conflicts requiring resolution by a larger bench. Key Issue Whether consolidated show-cause notices bunching multiple financial years are valid or violate Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, which prescribe separate limitation periods (3 and 5 years respectively) for each financial year. Conflicting Judicial Positions The court identified a "cleavage of opinion": - Against consolidated notices (*Milroc Good Earth Developers* - Bombay; *Madras, Kerala, Karnataka High Courts*): Each financial year is a separate assessment unit; consolidation violates the limitation scheme. - For consolidated notices (*Delhi and Allahabad High Courts*): Sections 73/74 are dispute-based adjudication provisions, not return-based assessments; fraud/ITC cases inherently span multiple years. - Supreme Court: Dismissed SLP in *Mathur Polymers* (Nov 7, 2025) with speaking order supporting consolidated notices. Court's Inclination (Not Binding) The two-judge bench appeared to favor permitting consolidated notices, noting that Sections 73(3)-(4) explicitly authorize issuing statements for "other periods," suggesting legislative awareness of multi-year proceedings. Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether subsection (10)'s limitation provision controls subsection (1)'s authority to issue consolidated notices 2. Whether subsection (10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices 3. Effect of Section 160 on such proceedings 4. Whether *Milroc* laid down correct law 5. Legal effect of Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order under Article 141 Interim Relief All interim orders previously granted in these petitions continue until the Larger Bench decides. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 13-Feb-2026

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

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

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

  8. 12-Feb-2026

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

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 11-Feb-2026

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

  11. 22-Jan-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Ms. Mangal Entertainment Case This is a batch of consolidated writ petitions before the Bombay High Court addressing whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73/74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. Case Outcome Petitions referred to a Larger Bench for decision on questions of law. The court did not allow or dismiss the petitions but instead identified significant legal conflicts requiring resolution by a larger bench. Key Issue Whether consolidated show-cause notices bunching multiple financial years are valid or violate Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, which prescribe separate limitation periods (3 and 5 years respectively) for each financial year. Conflicting Judicial Positions The court identified a "cleavage of opinion": - Against consolidated notices (*Milroc Good Earth Developers* - Bombay; *Madras, Kerala, Karnataka High Courts*): Each financial year is a separate assessment unit; consolidation violates the limitation scheme. - For consolidated notices (*Delhi and Allahabad High Courts*): Sections 73/74 are dispute-based adjudication provisions, not return-based assessments; fraud/ITC cases inherently span multiple years. - Supreme Court: Dismissed SLP in *Mathur Polymers* (Nov 7, 2025) with speaking order supporting consolidated notices. Court's Inclination (Not Binding) The two-judge bench appeared to favor permitting consolidated notices, noting that Sections 73(3)-(4) explicitly authorize issuing statements for "other periods," suggesting legislative awareness of multi-year proceedings. Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether subsection (10)'s limitation provision controls subsection (1)'s authority to issue consolidated notices 2. Whether subsection (10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices 3. Effect of Section 160 on such proceedings 4. Whether *Milroc* laid down correct law 5. Legal effect of Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order under Article 141 Interim Relief All interim orders previously granted in these petitions continue until the Larger Bench decides. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case