HMM Shipping India Pvt Khaitan and Co vs The Union of India — WP/2021/2025

Case under Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section 65. Next hearing: 29th July 2026.

CNR: HCBM020157802025

Next Hearing

29th July 2026

e-Filing Number

16-05-2025

Filing Number

WP/15779/2025

Filing Date

20-05-2025

Registration No

WP/2021/2025

Registration Date

11-06-2025

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

Original

Acts & Sections

Central Goods and Service Tax Act Section 65

Petitioner(s)

HMM Shipping India Pvt Khaitan and Co

Respondent(s)

The Union of India

The Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Audit II, Mumbai

Adv. DAS SUMAN KUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

14-10-2025

FOR CIRCULATION

29-07-2026

DUE ADMISSION - 1

13-02-2026

AT 3.00 P.M.

18-02-2026

HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)

02-12-2025

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

17-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI,HON'BLE MS JUSTICE AARTI A. SATHE

CASE SUMMARY: WP/2021/2025 - HMM Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Outcome: Case referred to Larger Bench for decision on five key questions of law regarding consolidated show-cause notices under GST. 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. Current Status: The petitions are dismissed in terms of the stated relief but referred for larger bench consideration. Pending interim orders continue until the larger bench decides. Background: HMM Shipping and multiple other petitioners challenged consolidated show-cause notices claiming they violated Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, which prescribe separate 3-year and 5-year limitation periods. The petitioners relied on the Milroc Good Earth Developers decision (Bombay High Court) holding such consolidated notices invalid. Court's Finding: The Division Bench found a "cleavage of opinion" across High Courts—some (Bombay, Kerala, Madras, Karnataka) struck down consolidated notices, while others (Delhi, Allahabad) upheld them. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Mathur Polymers SLP without interference created conflicting precedent. Five Questions Referred to Larger Bench: 1. Whether sub-section (10) controls issuance of consolidated notices under sub-section (1) 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 under Article 141 following Supreme Court's Mathur Polymers order Interim Relief: All existing interim orders continue pending larger bench decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WP/2021/2025 - HMM Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Outcome: Case referred to Larger Bench for decision on five key questions of law regarding consolidated show-cause notices under GST. 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. Current Status: The petitions are dismissed in terms of the stated relief but referred for larger bench consideration. Pending interim orders continue until the larger bench decides. Background: HMM Shipping and multiple other petitioners challenged consolidated show-cause notices claiming they violated Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the CGST Act, which prescribe separate 3-year and 5-year limitation periods. The petitioners relied on the Milroc Good Earth Developers decision (Bombay High Court) holding such consolidated notices invalid. Court's Finding: The Division Bench found a "cleavage of opinion" across High Courts—some (Bombay, Kerala, Madras, Karnataka) struck down consolidated notices, while others (Delhi, Allahabad) upheld them. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Mathur Polymers SLP without interference created conflicting precedent. Five Questions Referred to Larger Bench: 1. Whether sub-section (10) controls issuance of consolidated notices under sub-section (1) 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 under Article 141 following Supreme Court's Mathur Polymers order Interim Relief: All existing interim orders continue pending larger bench decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case