Gauhati High Court Upholds Consolidated GST SCNs Across Financial Years: Jurisdictional Challenge Fails

Background and Context

The Gauhati High Court recently decided a batch of three writ petitions involving a common jurisdictional question under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Act of 2017). The central issue was whether a Proper Officer acting under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act of 2017 can validly issue a single consolidated show cause notice (SCN) covering more than one financial year, and consequently pass a consolidated adjudication order.

Although each petitioner had an alternate statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 and further under Section 112 of the Act of 2017, they invoked writ jurisdiction solely on the ground that the entire proceedings were void for lack of jurisdiction, as according to them consolidated SCNs were impermissible.

The High Court decided to address this pure question of jurisdiction first and hear all three writ petitions together by a common judgment.

Factual Matrix of the Three Writ Petitions

1. WP(C) No.2922/2025 – Public Limited Company Rendering Works Contract Services

  • The assessee, a public limited company, is registered under the Act of 2017 and provides works contract services.
  • The Department conducted an audit for the period from July 2017 (part of FY 2017-18) up to March 2022 (FY 2021-22). The final audit findings were issued on 13.12.2023 in FORM GST ADT-02.
  • During and after audit, the assessee claims to have discharged various amounts towards tax liabilities.
  • Subsequently:
    • On 27.12.2023, a SCN under Section 74(1) was issued for FYs 2018-19 to 2021-22.
    • On 28.12.2023, another SCN under Section 73(1) was issued for FY 2018-19.
  • The assessee participated in adjudication, leading to an Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024.
  • On appeal, the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.5) passed an Order-in-Appeal dated 06.02.2025 confirming the demand as proposed in the SCNs.
  • Instead of proceeding under Section 112 by appealing to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee approached the High Court, challenging, inter alia, the very jurisdiction to issue consolidated SCNs.
  • The High Court had earlier granted interim protection against coercive steps based on the appellate order, which continued during the writ proceedings.

2. WP(C) No.20/2026 – Partnership Firm in Construction Business

  • The assessee is a partnership firm, registered under the Act of 2017, engaged in construction of residential buildings.
  • Departmental search was conducted on 29.03.2023 at the principal place of business and other premises of the firm, and further search was carried out on 29.03.2023 and 03.04.2023 at residences of partners and the accountant.
  • Summons were issued to partners and the accountant on 29.03.2023 and 03.04.2023, and their statements were recorded.
  • Later, additional summons dated 30.08.2023 and 01.11.2023 were issued. The assessee did not appear or furnish documents, instead raising objections by referring to Section 67(2) read with Section 160(2) of the Act of 2017.
  • On 03.08.2024, a consolidated SCN under Section 74(1) read with Section 122(1A) and Section 122(3)(a) was issued against:
    • the firm,
    • its partners, and
    • its accountant,
      covering the period from July 2017 to March 2023.
  • The assessee sought separate SCNs for the partners and accountant vide letter dated 14.08.2024, but no substantive reply on merits was filed by any of the noticees.
  • Hearings took place on 13.01.2025 and 20.01.2025, culminating in an Order-in-Original dated 04.02.2025.
  • The firm filed six appeals, and partners filed two appeals against the Order-in-Original. The Appellate Authority passed an Order-in-Appeal dated 26.08.2025 confirming the demand.
  • The firm then filed this writ petition, again focusing on the jurisdiction to issue consolidated SCNs for multiple financial years.
  • Two partners separately filed writ petitions (WP(C) No.24/2026 and WP(C) No.25/2026) challenging penalty under Section 122(1A), raising distinct jurisdictional objections, which were to be decided independently.
  • Interim relief restraining coercive action pursuant to the impugned orders was granted and was continuing.

3. WP(C) No.1113/2026 – Company Supplying Road Building Materials

  • The assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, also registered under the Act of 2017.
  • It supplies road-building materials under the brand “Bitchem”, including Bitumen Emulsion, patented Bitchem Tailor-Made Cold Binder, Bitumen, Modified Bitumen, Ready Mix for Pothole Repair, LDO, Anti-Stripping Agents and Soil Stabilization products.
  • On 25.06.2025, a SCN under Section 74 was issued, with a summary in FORM GST DRC-01, clubbing FYs 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.
  • The allegation was that the assessee had understated taxable turnover in these years, leading to evasion of GST. GST of Rs.12,34,73,490/-, interest under Section 50, and penalty were proposed to be recovered.
  • The assessee filed separate replies for each financial year on 25.07.2025. Hearings were conducted on multiple dates, and an Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2025 was passed.
  • Instead of invoking appellate remedy under Section 107, the assessee filed a writ petition, primarily objecting to jurisdiction to issue a consolidated SCN covering multiple years.
  • The High Court granted interim protection against coercive recovery, which continued.

Petitioners’ Core Jurisdictional Arguments

A. GST Structure is Year-Specific and Tax-Period Specific

Counsel for the assessees argued that the entire GST framework treats each financial year and each tax period as separate for purposes of:

  • Filing periodic returns under Section 39;
  • Furnishing annual returns under Section 44;
  • Computation of limitation under Section 73(10) and Section 74(10);
  • Maintenance of accounts and records.

They submitted that the statute thereby recognizes each financial year as an independent unit for determination of tax liability.

B. Proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 Treated as Part of “Assessment”

Referring to Section 2(11) (definition of “assessment”), the assessees contended: