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

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.