Renault India Pvt Ltd vs Union of India — WP/6902/2025

Case under Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section 74. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.

Next hearing 09-Jul-2026

CNR: HCBM010216922025

e-Filing Number

13-04-2025

Filing Number

WP/13905/2025

Filing Date

16-Apr-2025

Registration No

WP/6902/2025

Registration Date

02-Jun-2025

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 74

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Renault India Pvt Ltd

    Adv. Mahir

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Union of India

  2. 2.Joint Commissioner

  3. 3.Joint Commissioner

  4. 4.State of Maharashra

  5. 5.Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Case History

  1. 09-Jul-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

    CASE SUMMARY: WP/6902/2025 - Renault India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India OUTCOME Case Referred to Larger Bench – The petitions were not finally decided on merits but instead referred to a Larger Bench to resolve conflicting High Court decisions on a critical issue of GST law. 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. CURRENT HOLDING The Division Bench (Kulkarni & Sathe, JJ.) found grave doubts about petitioners' arguments and indicated that: - Consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years appear permissible under the CGST Act - Subsection (10)'s limitation period does NOT restrict subsection (1)'s power to issue notices - The legislature deliberately used broader language ("for any period") in notice provisions versus "financial year" in limitation provisions CONFLICTING JURISPRUDENCE - Milroc Good Earth Developers & others: Consolidated notices impermissible - Delhi High Court (Mathur Polymers, Ambika Traders) & Allahabad High Court: Consolidated notices permissible - Supreme Court: Dismissed appeals challenging the Delhi HC view (Nov 2025) FIVE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH 1. Does subsection (10) limit subsection (1)'s scope? 2. Does subsection (10) prohibit consolidated notices per se? 3. Effect of Section 160 on consolidated notices? 4. Is Milroc's reasoning correct? 5. What is the legal position post-Supreme Court's Mathur Polymers dismissal? 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

    At 3.00 P.M.

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

  10. 11-Feb-2026

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

  11. 11-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 16-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/6902/2025

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WP/6902/2025 - Renault India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India OUTCOME Case Referred to Larger Bench – The petitions were not finally decided on merits but instead referred to a Larger Bench to resolve conflicting High Court decisions on a critical issue of GST law. 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. CURRENT HOLDING The Division Bench (Kulkarni & Sathe, JJ.) found grave doubts about petitioners' arguments and indicated that: - Consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years appear permissible under the CGST Act - Subsection (10)'s limitation period does NOT restrict subsection (1)'s power to issue notices - The legislature deliberately used broader language ("for any period") in notice provisions versus "financial year" in limitation provisions CONFLICTING JURISPRUDENCE - Milroc Good Earth Developers & others: Consolidated notices impermissible - Delhi High Court (Mathur Polymers, Ambika Traders) & Allahabad High Court: Consolidated notices permissible - Supreme Court: Dismissed appeals challenging the Delhi HC view (Nov 2025) FIVE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH 1. Does subsection (10) limit subsection (1)'s scope? 2. Does subsection (10) prohibit consolidated notices per se? 3. Effect of Section 160 on consolidated notices? 4. Is Milroc's reasoning correct? 5. What is the legal position post-Supreme Court's Mathur Polymers dismissal? This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case