One GST SCN for Multiple Financial Years Permissible — SC to Settle this GST Battle

Multiple High Courts across the country have now drawn a firm line against the practice of issuing composite or consolidated Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) and assessment orders spanning multiple financial years / tax periods under Sections 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a series of judgments — Sahiti Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, M/s. Supraja Dairy Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, and Sri Ganesh Steels and Cements v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals) — and the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in M/s. Techops Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI Nagpur Zonal Unit, have consistently held that a single SCN or a single order of adjudication cannot lawfully cover more than one tax period, setting aside such composite proceedings and directing fresh year-wise adjudication.

Against this backdrop of a judicial split, now the Supreme Court of India has now stepped in — issuing notice in Special Leave Petitions filed by the Revenue challenging the Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Court judgments, tagging all related matters with the lead SLP (C) No. 6232/2026, and listing them before a bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan — signalling that a definitive, binding pronouncement on this critical issue of GST adjudication procedure is on the horizon. Significantly, during the course of hearing before the Supreme Court, the Union of India disclosed that the Government is actively considering amendments to address this issue, with internal discussions already underway — a development that taxpayers and practitioners must watch closely.

[I] Composite Assessment Order Covering Multiple Tax Periods Quashed

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sahiti Agencies v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise & Anr. [W.P. No. 14874 of 2025, dated September 26, 2025] set aside a composite order-in-original and summaries of orders (Form GST DRC-07) covering multiple assessment years (July 2017 to March 2023) on the ground that a single show-cause notice and a single order of adjudication cannot lawfully span more than one tax period under the GST Act, 2017.

Facts:

• The petitioner, Sahiti Agencies, is a registered person under the GST Act. She was served with a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 under Section 74 of the CGST Act covering the periods July 2017 to March 2023 (six assessment years) for alleged short payment of tax of Rs. 43,07,332/-.
• The Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Commissioner) conducted a personal hearing and thereafter passed a composite Order-in-Original dated January 09, 2025 along with six summaries in Form GST DRC-07 dated January 17, 2025.
• The petitioner challenged both the show-cause notice and the order before the High Court on multiple grounds, including: (i) absence of digital signatures on the DRC-01 and DRC-07 forms; (ii) issuance of a composite/common show-cause notice and common order for six different assessment years; and (iii) non-issuance of pre-show-cause notice (Form GST DRC-01A) under Rule 142(1A) for the periods prior to 2021.

Issues:

• Whether a single composite show-cause notice and a single composite order of adjudication can be issued for multiple tax periods under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017?
• Whether the absence of physical or digital signatures on notices/orders issued electronically (Form GST DRC-01 and GST DRC-07) renders such proceedings invalid where the registered person has already responded to such notices?
• Whether an assessment for periods prior to 2021 can be sustained without prior issuance of a pre-show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017?

Held:

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 14874 of 2025 held as under:

• Observed that, Rule 26(3) of the CGST Rules, which mandates digital signatures on notices and certificates, applies only to proceedings under Chapter 3 (i.e., registration-related proceedings) and not to assessment-related notices issued under Sections 73/74. The appropriate rule governing service of assessment notices is Rule 142 of the CGST Rules.
• Observed that, any document issued electronically through the GST portal automatically generates a unique Reference/Filing Number (RFN), and the presence of an RFN is sufficient to establish that a digital signature has been affixed. A registered person who responds to such electronically issued notices/proceedings cannot subsequently contend that the notice was invalid for want of a signature.
• Held that, a composite show-cause notice and a composite order of assessment cannot be issued for different tax periods. Relying on the earlier Division Bench judgment in W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & Batch dated September 17, 2025, the Court held that separate show-cause notices and separate orders must be passed for each tax period.
• Held that, assessments for periods prior to 2021 undertaken without prior issuance of a pre-show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01A under Rule 142(1A) are vitiated and unsustainable.
• Directed that, the impugned Order-in-Original dated January 09, 2025 and the summaries of orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated January 17, 2025 are set aside; the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No. 1 for fresh proceedings in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing. The period from the date of this order until its receipt is excluded for limitation purposes.

[A] Supreme Court Issues Notice Challenging AP HC Judgment in Sahiti Agencies; Revenue Contests Composite SCN Ruling

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise & Anr. v. M/s Sahiti Agencies [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 1429/2026, dated February 06, 2026] issued notice on the Special Leave Petition filed by Revenue challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 14874 of 2025 (September 26, 2025), which had set aside a composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods under the GST Act.

Order of the Supreme Court:

• Delay condoned.
• Notice issued, returnable in four weeks.
• Dasti service permitted in addition.

[II] Composite SCN and Order for Multiple Assessment Periods Set Aside; Respondents Granted Liberty to Initiate Fresh Proceedings

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. Supraja Dairy Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. [W.P. No. 25206 of 2025, dated September 24, 2025] set aside a composite show-cause notice and composite order of assessment covering the tax periods July 2017 to 2020-21, reaffirming that a single SCN and order cannot span multiple tax periods under the CGST Act.

Facts:

• M/s. Supraja Dairy Private Limited challenged Show-Cause Notice bearing Ref. No. ZN3709230297757 dated September 28, 2023 and the Order-in-Original dated October 28, 2024, issued for the consolidated tax periods from July 2017-18 to 2020-21.
• The petitioner contended that: (i) a composite show-cause notice and composite assessment order covering multiple tax periods is impermissible under the CGST Act; and (ii) the taxes demanded in the order had already been paid by the petitioner, yet recovery proceedings were being initiated.

Issues:

• Whether a composite show-cause notice and a composite order of assessment covering multiple tax periods (July 2017-18 to 2020-21) can be legally sustained under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017?
• Whether recovery proceedings can be initiated when the petitioner claims to have already paid the demanded tax?

Held:

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 25206 of 2025 held as under:

• Noted that, the issue was squarely covered by the earlier judgment of the same Division Bench in W.P. No. 17671 of 2025 dated September 17, 2025, wherein it was held that a composite order cannot be passed for different tax periods.
• Held that, the composite show-cause notice dated September 28, 2023 and the composite order of assessment dated October 28, 2024 are legally impermissible as they cover multiple tax periods.
• Directed that, the impugned show-cause notice and order are set aside; the respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing both on merits and on the question of payment of taxes. The intervening limitation period is excluded.

[B] Supreme Court Issues Notice in SLP Against AP HC Judgment in Supraja Dairy; Matter Tagged with Lead SLP

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. v. M/s Supraja Dairy Private Limited [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 17321/2026, dated April 20, 2026] issued notice on Revenue’s Special Leave Petition challenging the AP High Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 25206 of 2025 (September 24, 2025), which had set aside a composite SCN and composite order for the tax periods July 2017 to 2020-21.

Order of the Supreme Court:

• Delay condoned.
• Notice issued.
• Dasti service permitted.
• Tagged with SLP (C) No. 6232/2026 (the lead matter on the issue of composite SCNs under the GST Act).

[III] Single Assessment Order for More Than One Financial Year Impermissible; Appellate Order Also Set Aside

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Ganesh Steels and Cements v. The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST-Appeals) & Ors. [W.P. No. 34400 of 2025, dated December 31, 2025] set aside both the assessment order (dated December 30, 2023) covering the period July 2017 to 2021-22 and the appellate order (dated October 31, 2025), holding that a single composite assessment order for more than one financial year is not permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act.

Facts:

• Sri Ganesh Steels and Cements, a registered entity, was served with an Order of Assessment dated December 30, 2023 by the 2nd Respondent covering the period from July 2017 to 2021-22 (spanning multiple financial years).
• The petitioner filed an appeal against the assessment order. The appeal was dismissed on October 31, 2025.
• The petitioner challenged both orders before the High Court, primarily on the ground that a single assessment order covering multiple financial years is violative of Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act.

Issues:

• Whether a single show-cause notice or a single composite assessment order can be passed for more than one tax period (whether monthly, if assessment is taken up before the due date for filing the annual return, or for more than one year if the due date for the annual return has passed) under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST Act, 2017?

Held:

The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 34400 of 2025 held as under:

• Noted that, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 11028 of 2025 & batch had held that a single show-cause notice or a single composite assessment order cannot be passed for more than one tax period — being either one month (if assessment is taken before the due date of annual return) or one financial year (if the due date of annual return has been reached).
• Held that, the impugned composite order of assessment dated December 30, 2023 is legally impermissible.
• Directed that, both the Order of Assessment dated December 30, 2023 and the Order of Appeal dated October 31, 2025 are set aside; the respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for each assessment year separately. The intervening limitation period is excluded.

[C] Supreme Court Issues Notice in SLP Against AP HC Judgment in Sri Ganesh Steels; Multiple SLPs Tagged Together

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (GST Appeals) & Ors. v. M/s Sri Ganesh Steels and Cements & Anr. [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 14994/2026 and SLP (Civil) Diary No. 22424/2026, dated May 08, 2026] issued notice on Revenue’s Special Leave Petition challenging the AP High Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 34400 of 2025 (December 31, 2025), which had set aside both the composite assessment order and the appellate order.

Order of the Supreme Court:

• Delay condoned.
• Exemption Application allowed.
• Notice issued.
• Tagged with SLP (C) No. 6232/2026 (the lead matter).

[IV] Bombay High Court Quashes Consolidated SCN Spanning Multiple Financial Years; Revenue at Liberty to Re-Issue Notices Year-Wise

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in M/s. Techops Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director DGGI, Nagpur Zonal Unit & Anr. [W.P. No. 1886 of 2025, dated December 05, 2025] quashed and set aside a show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act and MGST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2021, holding that clubbing multiple financial years in a single notice is not permissible.

Facts:

• M/s. Techops Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. challenged a show-cause notice dated August 01, 2024 issued by the Additional Director, DGGI Nagpur Zonal Unit under Section 74 of the CGST Act read with Section 74 of the MGST Act.
• The notice covered the period from July 2017 to March 2021 and alleged suppression of taxable value, resulting in alleged short payment of CGST of more than Rs. 6 Crores.
• The petitioner submitted that the issue of clubbing multiple financial years in a single show-cause notice was already settled by an earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and was also covered by the order in Rite Water Solutions (India) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur [W.P. No. 466 of 2025, decided on November 28, 2025].

Issues:

• Whether it is permissible to club or consolidate multiple financial years / tax periods into a single show-cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017?

Held:

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in M/s. Techops Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [W.P. No. 1886 of 2025] held as under:

• Noted that, the issue is covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment (as referred to in Rite Water Solutions) which held in categorical terms that there is no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax periods while issuing a show-cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The respondents’ counsel did not dispute this position.
• Held that, the show-cause notice dated August 01, 2024 is quashed and set aside.
• Directed that, the respondents are at liberty to re-issue the notice strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act, if there is no other legal impediment.

[D] Supreme Court Tags Bombay HC Judgment in Techops Infrastructure with Lead Composite SCN SLP

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Additional Director DGGI Nagpur Zonal Unit & Anr. v. M/s Techops Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. [SLP (Civil) Diary No. 17320/2026, dated April 15, 2026] tagged the Special Leave Petition filed by Revenue challenging the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)’s judgment in W.P. No. 1886 of 2025 (December 05, 2025) with the lead SLP on the composite SCN issue.

Order of the Supreme Court:

• Tagged with SLP Diary No. 1429/2026 (Sahiti Agencies — lead matter on composite SCN issue).

Our Comments & Analysis:

• Relevant Statutory Framework — Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017: Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 govern the issuance of show-cause notices and passing of orders for short-payment, non-payment, erroneous refund, or wrongful availment of input tax credit. Importantly, these sections require that for each ‘tax period’, the proper officer must issue a separate notice and adjudicate separately. A ‘tax period’ under Section 2(106) of the CGST Act means the period for which a return is required to be furnished — typically a month or a quarter. While an annual return is required under Section 44, assessment for financial year wise.
• Rule 142(1A) — Mandatory Pre-SCN Communication: Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, 2017 mandates that before the service of a formal show-cause notice under Section 73(1) or Section 74(1), the proper officer may communicate the ascertained tax, interest, and penalty to the taxpayer in Part A of Form GST DRC-01A. The AP High Court in Sahiti Agencies has reiterated that assessments for periods prior to 2021 where this pre-SCN communication was not issued are vitiated and unsustainable.
• Contrary View — Karnataka High Court in Chimney Hills Education Society: It is important to note that the Karnataka High Court, in intra-court appeals filed by Revenue in The Commissioner of Central Tax v. Chimney Hills Education Society [Writ Appeal No. 1751 of 2024 (T-RES) and connected matters dated April 23, 2026], allowed the Revenue’s appeals against a Single Judge order and held that show-cause notices under Sections 73/74 do not prohibit coverage of multiple financial years. The Karnataka HC opined that such notices are neither tax period-specific nor financial year-specific and that there is no statutory bar to issuance of a common SCN covering multiple tax periods or financial years, holding that any contrary interpretation would amount to rewriting the statutory provisions.
• Bombay HC Reference to Larger Bench: Recently, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Division Bench) in Rollmet LLP v. Union of India [WP No. 16848 of 2025 & connected matters dated April 17, 2026] has expressed serious doubt over the correctness of the earlier Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) ruling in Milroc Good Earth Developers, which had held that consolidated show cause notices under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act covering multiple financial years are impermissible. Considering the conflicting judicial views across various High Courts, the Division Bench observed that Sections 73(1)/74(1) and particularly sub-sections (3) thereof use the expressions “any period” and “such periods”, which prima facie indicate that the statute does not expressly restrict issuance of a single SCN to one financial year alone. The Court further noted that the limitation prescribed under Sections 73(10)/74(10) governs only the time limit for passing adjudication orders and not the issuance of show cause notices. The Bench also took note of the Delhi High Court decisions in Mathur Polymers and Ambika Traders, wherein consolidated SCNs were upheld, and particularly emphasized that the Supreme Court’s speaking order dismissing the SLP against Mathur Polymers may have binding implications under Article 141 of the Constitution. In view of the substantial divergence of opinion between different High Courts on the issue, the Bombay High Court referred the matter to a Larger Bench to authoritatively decide whether consolidated SCNs for multiple financial years are legally sustainable under the CGST Act, while directing that interim protections granted in pending matters shall continue until final adjudication.
• Practical Implication: Taxpayers who have received composite SCNs or composite adjudication orders covering multiple financial years from GST authorities have strong grounds to challenge the same, based on the legal position laid down by the Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts. However, given the contrary view of the Karnataka High Court and the Bombay HC reference to a larger bench, the matter is now sub judice before the Supreme Court of India, and the final legal position will be settled by the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.
• Significance of Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice in multiple SLPs filed by Revenue and to tag them all with the lead matter SLP (C) No. 6232/2026 signals that the Apex Court will now authoritatively settle the contentious question of whether a composite or consolidated show-cause notice and assessment order covering multiple financial years / tax periods is permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The matter is before a bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
• Government’s Indication of Possible Amendment: During the hearing before the Supreme Court, it was brought to the Court’s attention that the Union of India had earlier informed the Gujarat High Court that the Government is considering amendments to address this issue and that internal discussions are underway. This is a significant disclosure suggesting that even the Revenue may recognise the practical difficulties in the current legal position. Taxpayers and practitioners should monitor legislative developments closely.
• What Taxpayers Should Do: Taxpayers currently facing composite SCNs or composite orders should: (i) consider challenging such proceedings before the appropriate High Court in writ jurisdiction, relying on the pro-assessee judgments of AP and Bombay HCs; (ii) note that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and any final order passed pursuant to composite SCNs may be at risk of being set aside; and (iii) monitor the Supreme Court proceedings actively, as any interim order or stay could have widespread impact across ongoing GST assessments.

 (Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.