2025(03)LCX0357

Narayana Rama Bhat

Versus

The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

WP(C) NO. 2650 OF 2025 decided on 11-03-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1946

WP(C) NO. 2650 OF 2025

PETITIONER:

NARAYANA RAMA BHAT
AGED 74 YEARS
17/63, BHARATH BUILDING,
E K M ROAD, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 101.
BY ADVS.
PADMANATHAN K.V.
R.SREEJITH

RESPONDENTS :

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INTELLIGENCE),
KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA,
POOTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 004.

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION ALUVA,
KAP COMMERCIAL CENTRE, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683 101.

3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

SR.GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C) No.2650 of 2025

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2025

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the second respondent to pass separate orders for each financial year pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. Petitioner also seeks for a relief for the grant of sufficient time to file a reply to the show cause notice for the financial years 2022- 2023 and 2023-2024 and also for a grant of opportunity of personal hearing.

2. I have heard Sri.Padmanathan K.V., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. Ext.P1 is a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 in relation to Multiple financial years. On 22.01.2025, this Court had directed the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice for the assessment year 2017-2018 to be proceeded with while that for the remaining years to be continued only after getting further orders from this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 for the financial year 2017-2018 has already been completed and those for the remaining years are pending consideration.

5. A composite order for several financial years is not legally proper. Since already the proceedings for financial year 2017-2018 has culminated, the second respondent has to pass appropriate orders for each of the remaining financial years mentioned in Ext.P1 notice separately. I am fortified in the above view, by the decision in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s.Lakshmi Mobile Accessories 2025 SCC online KER 852 where a Division Bench of this Court observed that separate orders of determination are essential even under the CGST Act.

6. Petitioner has already filed a reply notice for the financial years 2018- 2019 to 2021-2022, and therefore appropriate orders thereon can be passed by the second respondent in accordance with law, separately for each of those financial years. As far as the financial year 2022- 2023 and 2023-2024 are concerned, since petitioner has not filed a reply till date, he is granted the liberty to file the reply to the show cause notice within one month from today and thereafter appropriate separate orders can be issued by the second respondent.

7. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to pass separate orders in respect of each of the financial years pursuant to Ext.P1 notice. In respect of financial year 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 a time limit of one month from today is granted to the petitioner to file a reply and thereafter appropriate orders can be passed for those years also separately. The orders shall be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-              
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE