Calcutta HC Refuses to Interfere in Consolidated GST Section 74 Proceedings | Biz Flow Kit

On 19 May, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a consolidated SCN issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The Court held that the taxpayer had an effective statutory appellate remedy available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Justice Smita Das De declined to interfere with the adjudication order passed against S. S. Iron & Steel and another petitioner, directing them instead to approach the appropriate appellate authority.

The legality of the order was contested by the applicant on 02.03.2026, passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act. The petitioners’ grievance was that the GST authorities had issued a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years from 2019-20 to 2023-24, which, as per them, was contrary to the statutory scheme and the limitation provisions under the Act.

The petitioners before the HC put reliance on the decisions in Whirlpool Corporation and Titan Company Ltd. to argue that bunching of SCN across various assessment years was not allowable in law.

It was claimed that the limitation under the GST norms is applicable for each fiscal year and thus, a consolidated preceding year cannot persist. The Court mentioned that the petitioners contended that issuance of a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years was “de hors the mandate of the statutory provision”.

A preliminary objection was raised by the GST authorities for the maintainability of the writ petition as per the fact that the petitioners had an appropriate appellate remedy u/s 107 of the CGST Act. On the decision in UBS Exports International Pvt. Ltd. and the Supreme Court order in Mathur Polymers, reliance was placed.

The HC post-hearing, both parties noted that the petitioners had not contested the SCN at the initial phase and approached the Court merely after the adjudication order was passed.

The Court maintained that problems of limitation, jurisdiction, and validity of the proceedings could be analysed via the appellate authority. The Court observed that the belated writ challenge appeared to be “an attempt to stall the multi-tiered adjudicatory process envisaged under the statute.”

Read Also: Bombay HC Clarifies Section 74 Scope, Invalidates Multi-Year GST Notice

Also, the Court said that a similar problem for the allowability of the consolidated SCNs was already pending consideration before a Larger Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mirloc Good Earth Developers. The Court, concerning judicial propriety, did not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy.

Determining that no exceptional circumstances justified interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioners the opportunity to file an appeal under Section 107 within thirty days.

The Court asked that if the same appeal is submitted within the mentioned duration, the appellate authority will determine the case as per its merits without rejecting it based on limitation.