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
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
FOR CIRCULATION
DUE ADMISSION - 1
AT 3.00 P.M.
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 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
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.
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