Visen Industries Limited PDS LEGAL vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS — WP/779/2026

SUMMARY: WP/779/2026 - Visen Industries Limited v. Union of India CASE OUTCOME: Petitions referred to Larger Bench for reconsideration of conflicting judicial precedents on consolidated GST show-cause notices; no final decision rendered on the substantive issue. --- KEY ISSUE Whether GST authorities can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years, or whether separate notices must be issued for each financial year. --- CONFLICTING POSITIONS Petitioners' Argument (Supported by Bombay HC Division Bench in *Milroc Good Earth Developers*): - Consolidated notices covering multiple years violate Sections 73(10) and 74(10) CGST Act - Year-wise limitation periods (3 and 5 years) mandate separate period-wise notices - Each financial year requires independent assessment and notice Revenue's Argument (Supported by Delhi HC in *Mathur Polymers* & Allahabad HC in *S.A.Aromatics*): - Consolidated notices are permissible when transactions span multiple years (esp. fraudulent ITC claims) - Limitation provisions govern order issuance, not notice issuance - Sections 73(3) and 74(3) expressly allow notices covering "any period" --- COURT'S PROVISIONAL VIEW The two-judge bench indicated sympathy toward the Revenue's position, noting: 1. Plain Language: Sections 73(3) and 74(3) use term "for any period" (not "for each tax period"), suggesting consolidated notices are permissible 2. Practical Need: Fraudulent ITC schemes require examining interconnected transactions across multiple years; consolidation enables holistic investigation 3. Statutory Distinction: - Subsection (1) governs notice issuance (permissive language) - Subsection (10) governs order issuance timeline (3/5-year limitation) - These are independent statutory concepts 4. Supreme Court Endorsement: SLP dismissals in *Mathur Polymers* (Nov 7, 2025) indicate Supreme Court found "no good ground" to interfere with Delhi HC's pro-consolidation stance --- QUESTIONS REFERRED TO LARGER BENCH 1. Whether subsection (10)'s limitation on order passage restricts subsection (1)'s notice issuance power? 2. Whether subsection (10) *per se* prohibits consolidated notices for multiple years? 3. Effect of Section 160 (curing defects in notices) on consolidated proceedings? 4. Whether *Milroc* Division Bench ruling correctly states the law? 5. Binding effect of Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* dismissal under Article 141? --- INTERIM STATUS ✓ All interim orders previously passed remain in effect pending Larger Bench decision --- *Decided: 17 April 2026* This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.