Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTConsolidated SCN Covering Multiple Financial Year Permissible In GST Fraud Cases: Supreme...

Consolidated SCN Covering Multiple Financial Year Permissible In GST Fraud Cases: Supreme Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed against the the decision of the Delhi High Court held that the consolidated Show cause notice (SCN) covering multiple financial years is permissible in GST Fraud Cases.

The bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Ambika Traders.

The Delhi High Court’s decision on two key issues related to a GST fraud case. 

Firstly, a consolidated SCN covering multiple financial years is permissible under Section 74 of the CGST Act, particularly in cases of fraudulent ITC claims, as the law uses the term “for any period” and not “financial year.”

Secondly, a writ petition is not the appropriate legal forum for challenging factual issues like the denial of cross-examination, especially when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available.

The petitioner/assessee was accused of availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) over multiple years (FY 2017–18 to 2021–22). The GST department issued a single, consolidated Show Cause Notice (SCN) for this entire period. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the consolidated SCN and arguing that the denial of cross-examination of witnesses violated the principles of natural justice.

 The Delhi High Court had previously dismissed the writ petition. It held that under Sections 74(3) and 74(4) of the CGST Act, notices can be issued “for any period” or “such periods,” which is distinct from the term “financial year” used in Section 74(10). The court reasoned that multi-year SCNs are a lawful and practical tool for dealing with fraudulent patterns that span multiple tax periods. On the issue of cross-examination, the court noted that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for challenging factual findings or the denial of cross-examination when the petitioner has not yet availed the statutory remedy of appeal.

The petitioner filed the SLP before the Supreme Court and but later on stated that he does not want to press the petition.

Concequenlty, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP.

Case Details

Case Title: Ambika Traders Versus Additional Commissioner

Case No.: SLP 23774/2025

Date: 01-09-2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: ​​Advocates Rajesh Jain, Rishabh Jain, Ramashish, Avadh Bihari Kaushik

Read More: Bail Denied in Dual Accounting Case Involving Alleged GST Evasion Through Parallel Records

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With GST Order Carrying RFN but No Separate DIN or Visible Signature

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling...

Negligible Listing and Disposal of GSTAT Appeals: Supreme Court Asks Tribunal President to Examine Grievance

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking court-monitored institutional reforms...

Rule 96(10) Deemed Omitted From Inception: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Interest Paid on Import IGST

The Bombay High Court has held that no interest could be levied on the...

Officer Who Conducted GST Audit Can’t Issue Notice and Adjudicate Same Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that the...

More like this

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With GST Order Carrying RFN but No Separate DIN or Visible Signature

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling...

Negligible Listing and Disposal of GSTAT Appeals: Supreme Court Asks Tribunal President to Examine Grievance

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking court-monitored institutional reforms...

Rule 96(10) Deemed Omitted From Inception: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Interest Paid on Import IGST

The Bombay High Court has held that no interest could be levied on the...