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

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: 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.

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

At 3.00 P.M.

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

For Circulation

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

Part-Heard

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

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled

Case filed

Registration No. WP/779/2026