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

Case under Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section Section16,Section74,Section50andSection122. Next hearing: 09th July 2026.

Next hearing 09-Jul-2026

CNR: HCBM010224562025

e-Filing Number

19-04-2025

Filing Number

WP/14395/2025

Filing Date

19-Apr-2025

Registration No

WP/16848/2025

Registration Date

10-Dec-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 Section16,Section74,Section50andSection122
Goods and Services Tax Act (Maharashtra)
Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act Section Section20
Constitution of India

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ROLLMET LLP

    Adv. Abhishek Rastogi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

    Adv. ,SUMAN DAS,SUMAN DAS,SUMAN DAS 1123

  2. 2.Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs

  3. 3.Office of the Commissioner of CGST Palghar

  4. 4.Office of the Joint Commissioner of State Tax

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

    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.

  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

    At 3.00 P.M.

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

  12. 06-Feb-2026

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

  13. 06-Feb-2026

    Part-Heard

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

  14. 05-Feb-2026

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

  15. 05-Feb-2026

    For Circulation

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

  16. 04-Feb-2026

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

  17. 04-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 19-Apr-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/16848/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case