CD Safety and Security Services LLP UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES vs Union of India Through the Secretary AND ORS — HCBM10058462026

Case under Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section 37, 38, 39. Status: Pronouncement Of Judgement. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.

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

CNR: HCBM010058462026

e-Filing Number

03-02-2026

Filing Number

WP/3388/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-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 37, 38, 39
Goods and Services Tax Act (Maharashtra) Section 37, 38, 39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CD Safety and Security Services LLP UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Union of India Through the Secretary AND ORS

  2. 2.State of Maharashtra

  3. 3.Joint Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

  4. 4.Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

  5. 5.Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise

  6. 6.Superintendent Anti Evasion Office of Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Belapur Commissionerate

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 Case: Batch of writ petitions including CD Safety and Security Services LLP v. Union of India & Ors. (WP 16848/2025 and others) Court: High Court of Bombay (Division Bench: Justices G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe) Date: 17 April 2026 Key Issue: 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 Act, 2017. --- OUTCOME The petitions are NOT disposed of on merits. Instead, the Division Bench has referred the matter to a Larger Bench due to conflicting judicial precedents and significant legal questions requiring clarification. The court has identified 5 key questions of law that need consideration by a Larger Bench before deciding these petitions. --- KEY HOLDINGS What the Current Bench Found: 1. Conflicting judicial positions exist: While the Bombay High Court's Milroc division bench held consolidated notices are invalid, the Delhi High Court (Mathur Polymers) and Allahabad High Court (S.A. Aromatics) held they are permissible. 2. Supreme Court's position: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in Mathur Polymers (7 November 2025) by a speaking order, thereby endorsing the Delhi High Court's view that consolidated notices are valid. 3. Statutory interpretation: On plain reading of Sections 73(1), (3), 74(1), and (3), the legislation appears to permit issuance of notices for "any period" and "such periods," which may not be confined to a single financial year. 4. ITC fraud cases: The court noted that in cases of Input Tax Credit fraud/wrongful availment, transactions are often interconnected across multiple years, making consolidated notices practically necessary and justifiable. 5. Limitation periods remain separate: Each financial year's limitation period (3 years under Section 73; 5 years under Section 74) operates independently, even in consolidated proceedings. --- QUESTIONS REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH 1. Whether Section 73/74(10)'s limitation provisions control Section 73/74(1)'s authority to issue consolidated notices. 2. Whether Section 73/74(10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices for multiple financial years. 3. What is the effect of Section 160 of the CGST Act on consolidated show-cause notices. 4. Whether the Milroc decision lays down the correct legal position. 5. What is the legal position in terms of Article 141 (Constitution) arising from the Supreme Court's order in Mathur Polymers. --- INTERIM RELIEF All interim orders passed in these petitions shall continue until the Larger Bench decides the issues. 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. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY Case: Batch of writ petitions including CD Safety and Security Services LLP v. Union of India & Ors. (WP 16848/2025 and others) Court: High Court of Bombay (Division Bench: Justices G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe) Date: 17 April 2026 Key Issue: 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 Act, 2017. --- OUTCOME The petitions are NOT disposed of on merits. Instead, the Division Bench has referred the matter to a Larger Bench due to conflicting judicial precedents and significant legal questions requiring clarification. The court has identified 5 key questions of law that need consideration by a Larger Bench before deciding these petitions. --- KEY HOLDINGS What the Current Bench Found: 1. Conflicting judicial positions exist: While the Bombay High Court's Milroc division bench held consolidated notices are invalid, the Delhi High Court (Mathur Polymers) and Allahabad High Court (S.A. Aromatics) held they are permissible. 2. Supreme Court's position: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in Mathur Polymers (7 November 2025) by a speaking order, thereby endorsing the Delhi High Court's view that consolidated notices are valid. 3. Statutory interpretation: On plain reading of Sections 73(1), (3), 74(1), and (3), the legislation appears to permit issuance of notices for "any period" and "such periods," which may not be confined to a single financial year. 4. ITC fraud cases: The court noted that in cases of Input Tax Credit fraud/wrongful availment, transactions are often interconnected across multiple years, making consolidated notices practically necessary and justifiable. 5. Limitation periods remain separate: Each financial year's limitation period (3 years under Section 73; 5 years under Section 74) operates independently, even in consolidated proceedings. --- QUESTIONS REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH 1. Whether Section 73/74(10)'s limitation provisions control Section 73/74(1)'s authority to issue consolidated notices. 2. Whether Section 73/74(10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices for multiple financial years. 3. What is the effect of Section 160 of the CGST Act on consolidated show-cause notices. 4. Whether the Milroc decision lays down the correct legal position. 5. What is the legal position in terms of Article 141 (Constitution) arising from the Supreme Court's order in Mathur Polymers. --- INTERIM RELIEF All interim orders passed in these petitions shall continue until the Larger Bench decides the issues. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case