Can one GST show cause notice cover several financial years? Each High Court in its own words

The answer turns on your High Court. At least five High Courts require a separate show cause notice for each financial year (Madras, Kerala, Bombay, Andhra Pradesh, Calcutta), and Himachal Pradesh quashed a composite notice where each year's issues differed; at least four allow one notice for several years (Delhi, Karnataka, Telangana, Gauhati). The Supreme Court issued notice on the department's petitions against an Andhra Pradesh ruling on 1 October 2026 and a Bombay ruling on 13 October 2026, with no stay recorded, so each High Court's ruling still binds officers in its own State. If your notice bundles years, take the point in your reply, and argue each year's time limit separately whatever your State.

Which High Courts allow one notice for several years?

A High Court's ruling binds the officers under it. Bombay says so: "the authorities working within the jurisdiction of the State of Bombay, will be bound by the law laid down by this Court" (Mehadia and Sons, WP 4844/2026, 28 August 2026, para 12).

What binds where, as at 6 November 2026. DB means Division Bench; the others are single judges.

Why do Madras, Kerala, Bombay, Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta want a notice for each year?

The order's deadline runs from the annual return "for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised relates" (s.73(10); s.74(10) is the same with five years). "Tax period" means "the period for which the return is required to be furnished" (s.2(106)).

• Madras (WP 17239/2025, para 20): reading "tax period" with sub-sections (1) to (4) and (10), "there is a specific bar in terms of the Section 73/74 for 'bunching of show cause notice'".
• Kerala (WA 627/2025, DB): the s.74 notice covered FY 2017-18 to 2021-22 and alleged wrong HSN codes (para 2). Separate notices are needed, "the entitlement to proceed and assess each year being separate and distinct, and further the time limit being prescribed under the Statute for each assessment year being distinct" (para 11). A composite s.74 notice could also hide a year that belongs under s.73: "by issuing a composite notice, the assessing authority, cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 73" (para 12).
• Andhra Pradesh (WP 11028/2025 batch, DB): it chose Madras over Delhi because "the effect of Section 73(4) and Section 73(3) had not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi" (para 16), and added the waiver scheme under s.128 and appeal rights (para 17).
• Calcutta (WPA 433/2026): "the limitation period of five years would be separately applicable for each and every financial year and thus, the limitation period would be different for every financial year" (para 33).
• Bombay: the Goa Division Bench in Milroc Good Earth Developers (WP 2203/2025, 9 October 2025) found "no scope for consolidating various financial years/tax period" (as quoted in WP 1829/2026, para 5). On 16 October 2026 the Nagpur Bench repeated that "under the law presently prevailing in the Bombay High Court, a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot club different financial years/tax periods" (WP 5640/2026).

Himachal Pradesh decided narrower facts. The State did not dispute that the subject matter differed from year to year, so the Division Bench quashed the composite intimation and notice, holding that "separate Intimations and if necessitated so after considering the response separate Show Cause Notices DRC-01" are to be issued (Ekta Enterprises, para 8).

Why do Delhi, Karnataka, Telangana and Gauhati allow one notice?

They read sub-sections (3) and (4). Section 73(3) lets the officer serve a statement for "such periods other than those covered" by a notice "issued for any period", and sub-section (4) deems it a notice where the grounds are the same.

"The nature of ITC is such that fraudulent utilization and availment of the same cannot be established on most occasions without connecting transactions over different financial years. The purchase could be shown in one financial year and the supply may be shown in the next financial year."

Delhi High Court (Division Bench), W.P.(C) 4853/2025, 29 July 2025, para 46

• Delhi began with alleged fake credit across FY 2017-18 to 2021-22 (W.P.(C) 4853/2025, para 5). In Technosys, an audit case for the same five years (para 2), it was "unable to agree" with confining that rule to fraudulent credit and read it as accepting consolidation "under both Section 73 and Section 74" (paras 21, 22).
• Karnataka (WA 1751/2024, DB), reversing single judges on a s.74 notice for July 2017 to March 2023 (para 4): "There is no statutory bar to issuance of a common show cause notice covering multiple tax periods or financial years" (para 57). It declined to follow Bombay, Kerala, Madras, Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh (para 59).
• Telangana (Goldstone Infra, DB) left a composite s.74 order standing because it was passed within the s.74(10) limit even for FY 2018-19, and held that the earlier Delhi ruling's being about input tax credit made no difference to the principle.
• Gauhati (Bitchem Asphalt): a consolidated notice and order "can also be passed by segregating the financial years which are barred by limitation by applying the doctrine of severability inasmuch as, each financial year constitutes a separate cause of action" (para 59). Where s.74 was invoked for FY 2021-22 to 2023-24 and s.74A for 2024-25, the officer must "determine the liability separately for each financial year, apply the provision applicable to that year" (HD Associates, para 22).

Does an allegation of fake input tax credit change the answer?

In Delhi it helped start the rule: "in cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC, where the transactions are spread across several years, a consolidated notice may in fact be required" (W.P.(C) 2394/2025, 26 August 2025, para 22). Delhi has since applied the rule beyond fraud (Technosys, para 21).

In Bombay it changes nothing: "There is no distinction made under Section 74 of the CGST Act that would permit the respondents to issue consolidated notices in a case where fraudulent availment" of credit is alleged; the only difference is the five-year limit (WP 1829/2026, 27 February 2026, para 10). Kerala treats a composite s.74 notice as a risk in itself, because it can carry a year that belongs under s.73 into the longer period of s.74 (WA 627/2025, para 12).

Has the Supreme Court decided whether one notice can cover several years?

Not yet. The department's petitions are pending, with notice issued and no stay recorded:

• against the Andhra Pradesh order in Naidu Hotel (SLP Diary No. 51000/2026): notice issued on 1 October 2026, listed with SLP (C) No. 6232 of 2026;
• against the Bombay order in WP 1829/2026 (SLP Diary No. 40923/2026): notice issued on 13 October 2026, tagged with SLP (C) No. 34951 of 2026.

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition against the Delhi ruling in W.P.(C) 2394/2025 on 7 November 2025 (SLP Diary No. 50279/2025, as Goldstone Infra records), but Bombay holds that the dismissal was "in limine and not on merit", so there is no merger (WP 1829/2026, paras 12, 13). A petition against W.P.(C) 4853/2025 "came to be dismissed as not pressed" (Technosys, para 23).

A Bombay Division Bench sought a larger Bench on 17 April 2026 in Rollmet LLP (WP 16848/2025). One question is "Whether the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 73/74 of the CGST Act per se prohibits the issuance of single consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years/tax periods?" (as the Gauhati High Court, Division Bench, records it: C.Ex.App. 6/2025, 22 April 2026, para 43). On the GST Council's proposed validation clause, see our 57th Council page.

How do I reply to a show cause notice that covers several years?

Grounds, each with its authority:

1. Jurisdiction, in a State that forbids it. Cite your own High Court from the table. Kerala entertained a writ against the notice itself because the challenge "goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the proper officer" (WA 627/2025, para 14).
2. Limitation, year by year, in every State. Gauhati, which allows one notice, still cuts out a year whose time has run (Bitchem Asphalt, para 59). Work out each year's s.73(10) or s.74(10) date with our time limit calculator.
3. The section, year by year. Ask for each year to be tested under the section that fits it: s.73, s.74 or s.74A (HD Associates, para 22; WA 627/2025, para 12).
4. Different issues in different years. Where the grounds change from year to year, rely on Ekta Enterprises (para 8) and on the condition in s.73(4) that the grounds be "the same as are mentioned in the earlier notice".

Practical points, not legal rules:

• Ask for a year-wise break-up of tax, interest and penalty if the notice does not give one; you need it to test each year's limitation date.
• Expect fresh notices if you win. Andhra Pradesh set the orders aside "leaving it open for the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, for each assessment year separately", and excluded the time in between for limitation (WP 11028/2025, para 19). Bombay left the officer free "to re-issue notice strictly in terms of the provisions of Section 73" (Mehadia and Sons, para 16).
• Recheck before you file. The Supreme Court or Bombay's larger Bench may settle the point at any time, so check your draft's citations the week you file.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• Statute CGST Act s.73 and s.74, sub-sections (3), (4) and (10); s.2(106).
• High Courts as named in the table and text, with paragraph numbers. Gauhati Division Bench C.Ex.App. 6/2025 (22 April 2026) for the larger Bench questions.
• Supreme Court Record of proceedings, SLP (C) Diary No. 51000/2026 (1 October 2026) and Diary No. 40923/2026 (13 October 2026).