Sheth Creators Sun Vision Private Limited PDS LEGAL vs The Union of India — WP/246/2026
Case under Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 Section 74. Next hearing: 29th July 2026.
CNR: HCBM020430822025
Next Hearing
29th July 2026
e-Filing Number
31-12-2025
Filing Number
WP/43080/2025
Filing Date
31-12-2025
Registration No
WP/246/2026
Registration Date
05-01-2026
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
DIRECT TAXES ( 10 )
Sub-Category
GST GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ( 100 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sheth Creators Sun Vision Private Limited PDS LEGAL
Respondent(s)
The Union of India
The Commissioner of CGST Mumbai West Commissionerate
The Joint Commissioner of CGST Mumbai West Commissionerate
The Joint Commissioner Audit III CGST Mumbai
The State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
FRESH ADMISSION
DUE ADMISSION - 1
AT 3.00 P.M.
HIGH ON BOARD (HOB)
PART-HEARD
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-01-2026 | FRESH ADMISSION |
| 29-07-2026 | DUE ADMISSION - 1 |
| 13-02-2026 | AT 3.00 P.M. |
| 18-02-2026 | HIGH ON BOARD (HOB) |
| 11-02-2026 | PART-HEARD |
Orders
CASE SUMMARY: WP/246/2026 Case Name: Sheth Creators Sun Vision Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Others Court: Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Judges: G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ. Date: 17 April 2026 OUTCOME The batch of petitions has been referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of the issue. The court did NOT finally decide whether consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are permissible under the CGST Act, 2017. Instead, it identified significant legal questions requiring reconsideration and referred the matter for a larger bench hearing. 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, or whether separate notices must be issued for each financial year. MAIN FINDINGS - The court found conflicting judicial precedents: Some High Courts (Goa, Madras, Kerala, Karnataka) held consolidated notices impermissible; others (Delhi, Allahabad) held them permissible - The Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions in *Mathur Polymers* and *Ambika Traders* without interfering with Delhi HC decisions allowing consolidated notices - The court identified no statutory language explicitly prohibiting consolidated notices and noted that Sections 73(3) and 74(3) contemplated notices "for any period" - The limitation period in subsection (10) applies to passing orders, not to issuing show-cause notices, which are separate statutory concepts REFERRED QUESTIONS FOR LARGER BENCH 1. Whether subsection (10) controls subsection (1) to bar consolidated notices 2. Whether subsection (10) per se prohibits consolidated notices for multiple years 3. Effect of Section 160 on consolidated notice proceedings 4. Whether the *Milroc* decision correctly states the law 5. Legal position under Article 141 of the Constitution following the Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order Status: All interim orders continue pending the larger bench decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY: WP/246/2026 Case Name: Sheth Creators Sun Vision Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India & Others Court: Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Judges: G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ. Date: 17 April 2026 OUTCOME The batch of petitions has been referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration of the issue. The court did NOT finally decide whether consolidated show-cause notices covering multiple financial years are permissible under the CGST Act, 2017. Instead, it identified significant legal questions requiring reconsideration and referred the matter for a larger bench hearing. 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, or whether separate notices must be issued for each financial year. MAIN FINDINGS - The court found conflicting judicial precedents: Some High Courts (Goa, Madras, Kerala, Karnataka) held consolidated notices impermissible; others (Delhi, Allahabad) held them permissible - The Supreme Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions in *Mathur Polymers* and *Ambika Traders* without interfering with Delhi HC decisions allowing consolidated notices - The court identified no statutory language explicitly prohibiting consolidated notices and noted that Sections 73(3) and 74(3) contemplated notices "for any period" - The limitation period in subsection (10) applies to passing orders, not to issuing show-cause notices, which are separate statutory concepts REFERRED QUESTIONS FOR LARGER BENCH 1. Whether subsection (10) controls subsection (1) to bar consolidated notices 2. Whether subsection (10) per se prohibits consolidated notices for multiple years 3. Effect of Section 160 on consolidated notice proceedings 4. Whether the *Milroc* decision correctly states the law 5. Legal position under Article 141 of the Constitution following the Supreme Court's *Mathur Polymers* order Status: All interim orders continue pending the 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