Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority UBR LEGAL ADVOCATES vs Union of India — WP/4002/2025

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 WP/4002/2025 Case: Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority v. Union of India and State of Maharashtra and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Court: High Court of Bombay (Judges: G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ.) Date: 17 April 2026 Outcome Case Referred to Larger Bench – The court did not decide the petitions on merits. Instead, recognizing a significant conflict of judicial opinion across High Courts, the court referred five critical questions of law to a larger bench for determination. Key Issue Whether the GST Department can issue a single consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017. Legal Conflict The court identified a "cleavage of opinion" among High Courts: - Against consolidated notices: Bombay (Goa bench) in *Milroc Good Earth Developers*, Bombay (Nagpur), Kerala, Madras, and Karnataka High Courts held that separate show-cause notices must be issued for each financial year - Permitting consolidated notices: Delhi and Allahabad High Courts held that consolidated notices are permissible; the Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions in *Mathur Polymers* and *Ambika Traders* without interfering with Delhi HC's decision Court's Observation The bench noted that: 1. The limitation periods under Section 73(10)/74(10) are year-specific 2. Sections 73(3) and 74(3) use language like "for any period" and "such periods," suggesting flexibility in notice issuance 3. The scheme distinguishes between return-based assessment (linked to tax periods) and adjudication proceedings (dispute-based, potentially spanning multiple years) Questions Referred to Larger Bench 1. Whether sub-section (10) controls sub-section (1) regarding consolidated notices 2. Whether sub-section (10) prohibits consolidated notices per se 3. Effect of Section 160 CGST Act on consolidated proceedings 4. Whether *Milroc* decision lays down correct law 5. Legal position following Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order under Article 141 Interim Relief: All existing interim orders continue until the larger bench decides. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

High On Board (Hob)

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 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 Admission

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

Fresh Admission

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/4002/2025