ROLLMET LLP vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS — WP/16848/2025

Summary of WP/16848/2025 (ROLLMET LLP v. Union of India) Court: High Court of Bombay (Division Bench) Judgment Date: 17 April 2026 (Modified: 22 April 2026) Judges: G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ. Case Status: REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH --- Primary Issue Whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice bunching multiple financial years under Sections 73/74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. --- Key Decision The Division Bench did NOT decide the merits but instead identified significant conflicting judicial precedents requiring resolution by a Larger Bench. The Court noted: 1. Conflicting High Court views exist: - Against consolidation: Bombay (Milroc), Nagpur, Kerala, Madras, Karnataka High Courts - In favor of consolidation: Delhi High Court (Mathur Polymers, Ambika Traders), Allahabad High Court 2. Supreme Court's position: - Dismissed Special Leave Petitions in both Mathur Polymers (7 Nov 2025) and Ambika Traders (1 Sept 2025) without detailed reasoning - These dismissals indicate the Delhi HC view is law under Article 141 of the Constitution --- Five Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether Section 73/74(10)'s limitation provisions control the issuance of consolidated notices under Section 73/74(1) 2. Whether Section 73/74(10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices for multiple years 3. Effect of Section 160 CGST Act on such consolidated proceedings 4. Whether Milroc Good Earth Developers correctly holds that proper officers lack authority to club multiple years 5. Legal position post-Supreme Court's Mathur Polymers order under Article 141 --- Court's Analysis The Bench found merit in both petitioners' and respondents' arguments: Petitioners' Arguments (Against Consolidation) - Each financial year is separate; requires year-wise self-assessment - Section 73(10)/74(10) prescribe distinct 3-year/5-year limits per FY - Consolidation violates the scheme by attempting to club periods with independent limitations - Relied on Milroc precedent and decisions from multiple High Courts Respondents' Arguments (For Consolidation) - Sections 73/74(1) & (3) use language "for any period" without restricting to single FY - Consolidation doesn't extend limitation; each year's limitation is independently reckoned - Fraudulent ITC cases involve transactions spanning multiple years requiring connected analysis - Allahabad HC and Delhi HC support this view; Supreme Court has implicitly endorsed it - Section 160 CGST Act protects such notices from defects --- Outcome PETITIONS DISMISSED WITHOUT FINAL ADJUDICATION - All interim orders continue until Larger Bench decides - Case referred to Chief Justice for constitution of larger bench - No immediate relief granted to petitioners - Department can continue proceedings under existing consolidated notices pending larger bench decision --- Significance This is a critical unresolved question in GST law with revenue and assessee implications. The Supreme Court's dismissal of SLPs suggests tolerance for consolidated notices, but the Bombay HC's hesitation indicates the issue warrants authoritative clarification from a larger bench to bring uniformity across High Courts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.