Ms Oshmedics Healthcare LLP PDS LEGAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS — WP/15750/2025

Due Admission - 1

Hon'ble The Chief Justice , Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam

Hon'ble The Chief Justice,hon'ble Shri Justice Suman ShyamView PDF

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

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

Summary of Case WP/15750/2025 Case Details Court: High Court of Bombay (Bombay High Court) Parties: Ms Oshmedics Healthcare LLP (Petitioner) v. Union of India and Others (Respondents) Date: 17 April 2026 Bench: G.S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ. Issue The primary issue concerns 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 (CGST Act), or whether separate notices must be issued for each financial year. Court's Order The case has been referred to a Larger Bench for consideration. The Division Bench declined to follow the earlier Division Bench decision in *Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India* (which held consolidated notices are impermissible) and instead: 1. Found significant legal issues requiring larger bench consideration 2. Expressed the view that consolidated show-cause notices for multiple financial years appear permissible under the plain language of Sections 73/74 3. Distinguished the limitation provisions (sub-sections 10) from the notice issuance authority (sub-sections 1 & 3) 4. Maintained interim relief pending the larger bench decision Key Findings Arguments in Favor of Consolidated Notices - The statutory language uses "for any period" (not confined to single financial year) - Sub-section (10) prescribes limitation for passing orders, not issuing notices - Fraudulent ITC schemes require connecting transactions across multiple years - Supreme Court's dismissal of *Mathur Polymers* SLP supports this view - *Allahabad High Court* and *Delhi High Court* decisions permit consolidation Arguments Against Consolidated Notices - Each financial year requires separate return filing - Limitation periods (3-5 years) are prescribed separately per financial year - Violates principle of year-wise assessment Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether sub-section (10) controls sub-section (1)'s scope 2. Whether sub-section (10) per se prohibits consolidated notices 3. Effect of Section 160 on consolidated proceedings 4. Whether *Milroc* decision lays down correct law 5. Legal position post-Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order Status: Adjourned pending Larger Bench constitution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

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

At 3.00 P.M.

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

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

At 3.00 P.M.

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

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

Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna,hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. SonakView PDF

For Circulation

Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna , Hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak

Hon'ble Justice Advait M. Sethna,hon'ble Shri Justice M.S. SonakView PDF

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled

Case filed

Registration No. WP/15750/2025