# M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 208 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-20 - **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 7515 of 2025 - **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Indrajeet Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-sa-aromatics-pvt-ltd-v-union-of-india-ors-54782 - **Pages:** 35 ## Text _Characters 0–39,930 of 118,958. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39930 for what follows._ 208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 17. It is admitted case of the parties that a resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee giving lease to the petitioners of Gata No.1135, which was not approved by the S.D.M. In spite of that, the petitioners are alleging that they are in possession over the land in dispute. 18. It is surprising that a person, who has no authority to hold possession over the land in dispute is alleging possession over the land in dispute. The provisions contained under Section 122 B are not applicable to the case of the petitioners. 19. In regard to judgment placed by learned counsel for the petitioners of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been provided therein that these directions will not be applicable if there is unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law. The judgment referred hereinabove is not applicable to the case of petitioners. 20. The petitioners have admitted in annexure No.3 to the writ petition that they are not in possession over the land in dispute, therefore, the impugned orders passed against the petitioners do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and are just and valid. 21. It is however, made clear that the resolutions passed in favour of the petitioners was not approved by the competent authority i.e. S.D.M. vide order dated 31.10.1985 and it was returned back to the Land Management Committee and thereafter, no resolution allotting lease to the petitioners was ever submitted before the S.D.M., therefore, the petitioners have no right over the land in dispute and to adopt recourse as provided under law for unauthorized occupation on the land in dispute. The possession, if any, of the petitioners, is wholly illegal. 22. On the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 208 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. Writ Tax No. 7515 of 2025 Along with Other Connected Cases M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to challenge to proceedings initiated under S.s 73 and 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, including the legality of composite Show Cause 1 All. M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 209 Notices, applicability of S. 6(2)(b) of the Acts, permissibility of multiple adjudication orders arising from a single SCN, and the mandatory nature of limitation provisions. (Paras 2, 89-93, 99-100) Headnotes Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Adjudication Proceedings - Composite Show Cause Notice - "we are not inclined to accept on principle that a composite notice may never be issued under S. 74 of the Acts" - validity left open to be examined in individual adjudication proceedings. (Para 89) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017-Jurisdiction - Parallel Proceedings -S. 6(2)(b) of the Acts - bar on initiation of proceedings on the "same subject-matter" - parallel proceedings impermissible. (Paras 92-93) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017- Adjudication - Multiple Orders from Single SCN - "one SCN may never give rise to two separate adjudication orders, by two different authorities". (Para 99) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017- Mandatory Nature - "any notice issued within six months from the end of the limitation to make the adjudication order is time barred". (Para 100) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017- Garnishee-like Directions -direction to service recipients to withhold payments without statutory backing held impermissible. (Para 100(iv)) (E7) Held: On composite SCN - "while we are not inclined to accept on principle that a composite notice may never be issued under S. 74 of the Acts, we leave that question of validity of individual notices issued to individual noticees open to be examined in individual adjudication proceedings." (Para 89) On S. 6(2)(b) of the Acts - "the issue is no longer res-integra - now after pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Armour Security (supra) the issue rests finally and firmly decided in favour of the petitioners." (Para 92) On multiple adjudication orders from one SCN - "one SCN may never give rise to two separate adjudication orders, by two different authorities - Once an order is passed, the authority is rendered functus officio." (Para 99) On limitation - "the issue of limitation provision being mandatory, are decided in favour of the petitioners such that any notice issued within six months from the end of the limitation to make the adjudication order is time barred." (Para 100) Operative Directions - Writ Tax No. 7515 of 2025 and connected matters partly allowed / allowed / dismissed, as detailed in clauses (i) to (vi). "No orders as to costs." (Paras 100, 101) Case Law Cited State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and others, (2004) 10 SCC 201; Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9; CIT, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, (2002) 1 SCC 633; Mehsana District Central Cooperative Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 2 SCC 463; Maharao Bheem Singh of Kota Vs. CIT, (2017) 1 SCC 554; State of Gujarat Vs. Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 459; State of U.P. and others Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., (2014) 4 SCC 720; B. Prabhakar Rao & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, 1985 (SUPP) SCC 432; M/s Mathur Polymers Vs. Union of India, 2025:DHC:7435-DB; M/s Milroc Good Earth Developers Vs. Union of India, (2025) 36 Centax, 97 (Bom); Ambika Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner, (2025) 33 Centax 189; Titan Company Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner, (2024) 15 Centax 118 (Mad.) ; State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350 ; G. K. Trading Company Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1907 ; Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700 List of Acts Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Income Tax Act, 1961 210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES List of Keywords Proper Officer; Subject matter; Jurisdiction; Composite Show Cause Notice; S. 6(2)(b); Tax period; Financial Year; Limitation; Adjudication proceedings; Return-based assessment; parallel proceedings; functus officio; time barred Case Arising From ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions filed challenging Show Cause Notices, adjudication orders, and consequential directions issued by Central and State GST authorities under S.s 73 and 74 of the Acts. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant / Petitioners: Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Mr. Varun Srivastava, Mr. Salil Arora, Mr. Nalin Talwar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thakur, Mr. Suyash Agarwal, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Mr. Bharat Raichandani, alongwith other learned counsel. Advs. for the Respondents: Mr. N.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel; Mr. Sudarshan Singh; Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi; Mr. Gaurav Mahajan; Mr. Krishna Agarwal; Mr. Amit Mahajan; Mr. Parv Agarwal; learned Standing Counsel and Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. (Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. & Hon'ble Indrajeet Shukla, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Upasna Agrawal, Mr. Varun Srivastava, Mr Salil Arora, Mr. Nalin Talwar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thakur, Mr. Suyash Agarwal, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Mr. Bharat Raichandani (through video conferencing) alongwith Namit Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sudhanshu Yadav and Mr. Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. N.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for Union of India; Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi, Mr. Gaurav Mahajan, Mr. Krishna Agarwal, Mr. Amit Mahajan and Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue, Mr. Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Arvind Mishra, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present batch of petitions has been filed to challenge the proceedings initiated under sections 74 and 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (collectively described as the Acts). Since these petitions raise common issues, they have been heard together. Broadly, it has been canvassed: (i) it is not open to the revenue authorities to issue a composite Show Cause Notice (in short 'SCN') for different tax periods or to more than one noticee, especially for different Financial Years (in short FYs); (ii) in some of the cases such SCNs and Adjudication Orders have been passed in violation of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts. That may never be done. (iii) another, objection has arisen in one of the petitions - that in any case, it may be impermissible in law for two different authorities/Proper Officers, to pass separate orders both referable to one SCN; (iv) Further challenge has been raised in one petition to direction issued by the respondent authorities (to the service recipients of the petitioner), to withhold all payments due to the petitioners. 1 All. M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 211 3. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of other High Courts. It has been strenuously urged, in same set of facts involving the same legal context, i.e. the Acts, the interpretation made by the High Courts at Calcutta, Karnataka, Kerala, Bombay, Madras and Andhra Pradesh may be followed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue have relied on another set of decisions of other High Courts to contend, the view taken by the Delhi High Court, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Calcutta High Court, Kerala High Court and Bombay High Court, to contend that a composite notice may be issued as it does not cause any prejudice and it does not involve any violation of the law. To the extent, the basis of the proposed demands and the proposed demands of tax and penalty have been clearly quantified, it remains with the noticee to respond to such notices in such way and in such manner as may be advised. 5. As to the remaining contentions, it has been submitted, statutory remedy of reply and appeal is available to the noticees. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the present batch of petitions. 6. Before proceeding further, we may reduce the bare facts involved in these cases in tabular form: Sl. No. Writ Tax Name Show Cause Notice Adjudicatio n Order/Recti fication Order Passed under Section F.Y. 1. 7515/2025 M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and 5 others 30.09.2025 & 04.10.2025 - 74 2. 7500/2025 M/s S.D. Freshners Ltd. Through its Director Shri Mahesh Prasad and another Vs. Union of India and 5 others 30.09.2025 - 74 3. 1000/2025 M/s Mandakini Accommodation Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another 27.03.2024 26.11.2024 74 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 4. 2537/2025 M/s DBL Lucknow Sultanpur Highways Ltd. Vs. Union of India and 3 others - 04.02.2025 & rectification order dated 11.04.2025 74 2017-18 5. 4965/2025 M/s NGT Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and 2 others 28.05.2025 - 74 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 6. 1119/2025 M/s Mandakini Heaven Huts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another 30.08.2024 28.03.2024 74 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 7. 2246/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 2 others - 01.02.2025 74(1) 2024-25 8. 2247/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 3 others - 01.02.2025 74(1) 2024-25 9. 2454/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 3 others - 23.09.2024 74(1) 2024-25 10. 2456/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 3 others - 23.09.2024 74(1) 2024-25 11. 2569/2025 M/s R.C. Brothers Jangal Bhelampur Jainualbedin Gorakhpur Vs. Union of India and another 09.11.2023 and 06.12.2023 20.01.2025 & DRC-07 dated 30.01.2025 74 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 12. 2795/2025 PSR Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Central GST and 2 others - 01.02.2025 and DRC-07 dated 03.02.2025 74 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 13. 2838/2025 Anukul Bindal Vs. Union of India and 2 others 31.03.2023 28.01.2025/ 30.01.2025 122(1)(i i) 2024-25 14 8725/2025 M/s Indian Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 08.01.2024 29.04.2024 and rectification order dated 24.10.2024 73 7. Next, the facts giving rise to Writ Tax No. 7515 of 2025 (M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others), may be noted in brief. On 07.06.2019, a search was conducted in the case of that petitioner M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. by the Central GST Authorities. Also, on 24.2.2020 officers of the State GST Department conducted a search at the premises of the said petitioner and seized a consignment of scented tobacco and books of accounts. A summary order was issued under Section 67 of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, on 28.2.2020. On 11.3.2020, the said petitioner paid the demand of CGST and SGST together with cess, interest and penalty, for the Financial Year 2019-20 amounting to Rs. 7,91,668/-. On 24.03.2020, the said petitioner further paid tax, interest and penalty against the DRC-03. It was issued acknowledgement of such voluntary payment made under Section 74 (5) of the West Bengal GST Act, 2017, on 30.03.2021. 8. Thereafter, another search was conducted in the case of petitioner no. 2 on 17.04.2023. Yet, another search was conducted in the case of petitioner no. 1 M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., on 18.04.2023. Statement made by petitioner no. 2 during his search was later retracted. In any case, petitioner no. 1 again made payment Rs. 15,53,522/- towards tax, interest and penalty, on 24.5.2023 against DRC-03. On 03.08.2023, another search was carried out by the officers of West Bengal GST Authority in the case of petitioner no. 1. On 11.09.2024, the premises of petitioner no. 1 were again inspected by the West Bengal GST Authority. However, a closure report was issued in that respect, on 17.03.2025. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated and continued calling for statements to be recorded and replies to be furnished. Later, the impugned SCN dated 30.09.2025, was issued to petitioner nos. 1 and 2. 9. In these facts, the petitioner M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. has approached the Court, with the grievance noted earlier in this order. At the same time, in the two cases involving the petitioners 1 All. M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 213 - M/S S.A. Aromatics Pvt. Ltd., M/S S.D. Fresheners Limited, an additional ground has been pressed that the SCN impugned in these writ petitions suffer from jurisdictional error on account of violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts. Details of the same have been given in a tabular form, as below: DATE INVESTI G ATING AGENCY COMPANY NAME SECTION SCN DATE ORDE R DATE TAX PENALTY INTER EST TOTAL AMOU N T PERIOD S DRC 03 FILLED DRC-04 RECD 24.02.2 020 DRI&E S.D. FRESHNE RS LIMITED S.A. AROMATI CS PVT LTD 74(5) 74(5) NO NO 24.06.2020 24.06.2020 16610154 2506668 2491524 376000 3609942 216064 2271162 0 3101732 APR201 9 TO MAR202 0 APR201 9TO MAR202 0 25.03.20 21 24.03.20 21 07.02.20 25 22.01.20 25 DATE INVESTI G ATING AGENCY COMPANY NAME SECTION SCN DATE ORDE R DATE TAX PENALTY INTER EST TOTAL AMOU N T PERIOD S DRC 07 FILLED DRC-04 RECD 02.08.2 023 BI SOUTH BENGAL (HQ) S.D. FRESHNE RS LIMITED S.A. AROMATI CS PVT LTD 122(1) 122(1) 01.09. 2023 01.09. 2023 20.09.2023 20.09.2023 0 0 3896670 1104051 0 0 3896670 1104051 AUG 2023 TO AUG202 3 AUG202 3 TO AUG202 3 21.09.20 23 21.09.20 23 NO ACKN NO ACKN 02.08.2 023 BI SOUTH BENGAL (HQ) S.D. FRESHNE RS LIMITED S.A. AROMATI CS PVT LTD 122(1) 122(1) 01.09. 2023 01.09. 2023 20.09.2023 20.09.2023 0 0 3896670 1104051 0 0 3896670 1104051 AUG 2023 TO AUG202 3 AUG202 3 TO AUG202 3 21.09.20 23 21.09.20 23 NO ACKN NO ACKN DATE INVESTI G ATING AGENCY COMPANY NAME SECTION SCN DATE ORDE R DATE TAX PENALTY INTER EST TOTAL AMOU N T PERIOD S DRC 03 FILLED CLOSU RE REPORT 11.09.20 24 B.I. SOUGH BENGAL (HWH) S.A. AROMATI CS PVT LTD S.D. FRESHNE RS LIMITED 74(5) VERY MUCH RELEVANT WITH S.A. AROMATICS PVT LTD NO 12.09.2024 1023400 153510 78510 1255420 APR202 1 TO SEP2024 12.09.20 24 05.03.20 25 (A33, P457) 17.03.20 25 DATE INVESTIG ATING AGENCY COMPANY NAME SECTION SCN DAT E ORDER DATE TAX PENALTY INTER EST TOTAL AMOUN T PERIOD S DRC 03 FILLED CLOSU RE REPORT 13.06.2 025 B.I. SOUTH BENGAL (HWH) S.D. FRESHNE RS LIMITED 74(5) NO 18.06.2025 337677 50651 40521 428849 APR 2024 TO MAR202 5 comparat 24.06.20 25 21.07.20 25 214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES S.A. AROMATI CS PVT LTD 74(5) NO 18.06.2025 3057597 458638 1273168 4789403 ive to 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25) APR 2021 TO MAR 2024 comparat ive to (2021- 22, 2022- 23, 2023- 24, 2024- 25) 24.06.20 25 21.07.20 25 DATE INVESTIG ATING AGENCY COMPANY NAME SECTION SCN DAT E ORDER DATE TAX PENALTY INTER EST TOTAL AMOUN T PERIOD S DRC 03 FILLED CLOSU RE REPORT 17.04.2 023 DGGI,GHA ZIABAD S.D. FRESHNE RS LIMITED S.A. AROMATI CS PVT LTD 74(1), 122 74(1), 122 30.09. 2025 30.09. 2025 NA NA NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL AUG201 9 TO SPE2023 AUG201 9 TO SPE2023 "Comments:-It has been seen that the search by DRI&E, Kolkata dated 24-02-2020, periods covered was from April'2019 to March'2020 search by SGST dated 11.09.2024, periods covered was from April2021 to Sep'2024 search by SGST dated 13.06.2025 based on comparison of sales of Pan Masala with Tobacco, periods covered was from April'2021 to March'2025 in S.A.Aromatics Pvt Ltd and in S D Freshners Limited periods covered was from April'2024 to March'2025 but it was comperative to Apr'2021 to March'2025 search by DGGI dated 17.04.2023 period covered was Oct'2019 to Sep'2023 Remarks:- So it is clear that the periods covered by DGGI is already covered in case DRI&E dt. 24-02-2020, SGST dt. 11-09-2024 and SGST dt. 13-06-2025." 10. These petitions involving common issues have been heard together. Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the power to tax a subject must be express. He relied on State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and others, (2004) 10 SCC 201, wherein it has been observed as below: "106. The judicial opinion of binding authority flowing from several pronouncements of this Court has settled these principles: (i) in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency; (ii) before taxing any person it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section; and (iii) if the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject. There is nothing unjust in the taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly. 107.Power to tax is not an incidental power. According to Seervai, although legislative power includes all incidental and subsidiary power, the power to impose a tax is not such a power 1 All. M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 215 under our Constitution. It is for this reason that it was held that the power to legislate in respect of inter-State trade and commerce (Entry 42 List I Schedule 7) did not carry with it the power to tax the sale of goods in inter-State trade and commerce before the insertion of Entry 92-A in List I and such power belonged to the States under Entry 54 in List II. Entry 97 in List I also militated against the contention that the power to tax is an incidental power under our Constitution." (emphasis supplied) 11. Second, he has invoked the principle - where a power is conferred to do a certain thing in a certain manner, that thing must be done in that way or not at all. Thus, he has relied on Dhananjaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9; CIT, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, (2002) 1 SCC 633; Mehsana District Central Cooperative Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 2 SCC 463. 12. Third, referring to the language of Section 73 and comparing the same with Section 74 of the Acts, specifically referring to the provisions pertaining to Section 73/74 (1), 73/74 (2) and 73/74 (10), it has been stressed - the limitation to finalize any adjudication order is fixed/rigid. It has been prescribed with reference to the last date to furnish annual return for a Financial Year or (in the alternative) with reference to the date of refund. Cases of refund apart, the period of limitation is clearly referable to a Financial Year and/or tax period for which a return is to be filed. 13. That period of limitation being rigid and fixed, the limitation to issue a notice under Section 73/74 (1) ends three months (in cases falling under Section 73) and six months (in the case of Section 74 proceedings), before the end of the limitation to frame the order. To the extent the SCN dated 30.09.2025 has been first received by petitioner no. 2 in Writ Tax No. 7515 of 2025 on 8.10.2025, after expiry of minimum time limitation prescribed under Section 74 (3) read with Section 74 (10), clearly those proceedings are time barred. Reliance has been placed on a coordinate bench decision of this Court in Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India. That petition arose from re-assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. At present, it has been submitted, the notice to petitioner no.2 was not issued at any point in time before it was dispatched through e-mail, on 08.10.2025. 14. Elaborating his submission, learned Senior Counsel has relied on Maharao Bheem Singh of Kota Vs. CIT (2017) 1 SCC 554, State of Gujarat Vs Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 459 to submit - each Financial Year is an independent unit of assessment. Therefore, all SCNs required to be issued under Section 73/74 of the Acts may be issued only with reference to one or the other FY or tax period but not for more than one FY. Thus, in view of obligation to file annual returns, though it may be permissible for a proper officer to issue a SCN to a noticee for more than one tax period falling under one FY, a composite notice may never be issued for more than one tax period, falling in two different FYs. 15. Further, he would submit, wherever the legislature intended to provide for such composite notices to be issued, it has provided for the same, by enacting specific provisions to that effect such as those enacted under Chapter XIV - B of the Income Tax Act 1961 - for block assessment proceedings. Referring to those provisions, he has taken us to the definition of 'block period' (under the Act) and its effect - enabling the assessing authority to seek assessment of undisclosed 216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES income across more than one unit of assessment i.e. Assessment Year. In absence of any parallel provision existing under the Acts, that effect of substantive law may not arise during adjudication proceedings under the Acts. 16. In the same way, referring to Section 158-BD of the Income Tax Act 1961, it has been submitted, wherever the legislature intended to provide for assessment of any person, based on facts found against another, it has provided for the same through a specific provision. In absence of similar provisions existing under the Acts, the revenue authorities, i.e. the Proper Officers under the Acts, do not have jurisdiction to issue a composite notice to multiple/more than one noticee. 17. Fourth, objecting to considerations of administrative exigency or convenience, learned Senior Counsel has relied on State of U.P. and others Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd., (2014) 4 SCC 720, to submit that the defence of administrative chaos may not be recognized as a good ground to defend a proceeding that lacks jurisdiction. To the same effect, reliance has been placed on B. Prabhakar Rao & others Vs. State of Andhra Pradeswh & others, 1985 (SUPP) SCC 432. 18. The above submissions are described to have found acceptance of the Karnataka High Court in M/S Pramur Homes and Shelters Vs. Union of India and others, 2025:KHC:52750. That High Court has reasoned - occasioned by the requirement to file monthly, quarterly and annual returns and the time limit prescribed, the requirement to issue individual SCNs for the purposes of adjudication may remain referable to the 'tax period' or a FY. Keeping in mind the principle applicable to assessment and payment of tax linked to the tax period and the timelines arising with reference thereto, it has been further reasoned that the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s Mathur Polymers Vs. Union of India, 2025:DHC:7435-DB may not be a good law. The fact that the Special Leave Petition arising therefrom came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court may not cause any precedential effect in law. 19. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of Bombay High Court in M/s Milroc Good Earth Developers Vs. Union of India, (2025) 36 Centax, 97 (Bom) wherein the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner, (2025) 33 Centax 189 has been distinguished. 20. Further, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has applied the ratio of the decisions of Madras and Kerala High Courts in Titan Company Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner, (2024) 15 Centax 118 (Mad.); R.A. & Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, Chennai South, (2025) 33 Centax 14 (Mad.) and Tharayil Medicals Vs. Deputy Commissioner, SGST Department, (2025) 29 Centax 395 (Ker.). In that the Bombay High Court has also taken note of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350 wherein it was observed as below: "where an assessment encompasses different assessment years, each assessment year could be easily split up and dissected and the items can be separated and taxed for different periods. The said law was laid down keeping in mind that each and every Assessment Year will have a separate period of limitation and the limitation will start independently and that is the 1 All. M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 217 reason why the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that each assessment year could be easily split up and dissected and the items can be separated and taxed for different period. The said principle would apply to the present case as well." 21. Fifth, on the applicability of Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts, it has been submitted, that issue is no longer res integra. Directly, in the case of G. K. Trading Company Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1907, a coordinate bench of this Court had clearly ruled against multiple proceedings initiated in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts. That decision of this Court has been considered and the same principle applied recently by the Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1700. Referring to the chart (relied by him) i.e. the second table extracted above, it has been submitted, except for FY 2020-21, all other proceedings for all other 'tax periods' are covered under Section 74(5) of the Acts. To that extent, the impugned show-cause notice would remain barred on the strength of Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts. 22. Last, it has been submitted, the view taken by the Delhi High Court in M/s Mathur Polymers (supra) and Ambika Traders (supra) has not attained finality as may lend strong persuasive value to it. In a later case - M/s Aparna Collection Vs. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 890/2025, the writ petition filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was disposed of with the following observation: "The petitioner will be at liberty to bring to the notice of High Court the decisions of the Madras High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court and it can be considered and disposed of by the High Court on its own merits." Thus, the issue is again engaging attention of the Delhi High Court. It has issued notice on the petition filed by M/s Aparna Collection (supra). 23. Mr. Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, has first adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate. He has pointed out that the adjudication proceedings challenged in Writ Tax Nos. 2247 of 2025 and 2454 of 2025 are barred on the principle contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts. 24. An additional ground has been pressed by Mr. Suyash Agrawal in Writ Tax No. 2246 of 2025; 2247 of 2025; 2454 of 2025 and 2456 of 2025. It is thus submitted, against one SCN issued by the authority at Meerut, two adjudication orders have emerged - one by the Meerut authority and the other by the authority at Lucknow. Such proceedings are inherently defective as may never be sustained. The details of those proceedings thus assailed are summarized as below: Sl. No. Writ Tax Name Show Cause Notice Adjudication Order/Rectification Order Passed under Section F.Y. 1. 2246/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 2 others 30.04.2022 01.02.2025 74(1) 2024-25 218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. 2247/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 3 others 30.04.2022 01.02.2025 74(1) 2024-25 3. 2454/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 3 others 30.04.2022 23.09.2024 74(1) 2024-25 4. 2456/2025 Raj Trade Link Corporation Vs. Union of India and 3 others 30.04.2022 23.09.2024 74(1) 2024-25 25. In addition, he has further referred to the liabilities of persons registered under the Acts and persons not liable to registration. With reference to persons liable to registration, he has referred to the compliance obligation imposed on those persons - to file monthly and annual returns. He has referred to provisions of Section 74(3) of the Acts and relied on the words 'any period' and the phrase 'for such tax periods' appearing in Sub-Section 4 of the said Section. He would submit-allegations of fraud or willful suppression etc. must be recorded with reference to each 'tax period', separately. There can be no omnibus recital of those jurisdictional facts, pertaining to different 'tax periods', spread across different/more than one Financial Year, in a single Show Cause Notice. Elaborating his submission, he would submit, the word 'period' is not defined under the Acts, though the phrase 'tax period' is defined under Section 2(108) of the Acts. This means and refers only to a 'period' for which a return is required to be furnished under the Acts. 26. Next, he would submit, under Section 73 of the Acts, adjudication proceedings are preceded by search, scrutiny or audit. Under Section 61(3) of the Acts, the return may be processed. Only if no satisfactory explanation is furnished for the month, appropriate action may be initiated, including adjudication. Further, by virtue of Section 74(10) of the Acts, an adjudication order itself is required to be passed within time prescribed with reference to the date of furnishing return. Since return may be furnished only with respect to a 'tax period', inherently under Section 74 of the Acts, such proceedings must arise and be restricted to one 'tax period', not exceeding a FY, against one SCN. 27. Then, referring to Rule 142 of the Rules framed under the Acts, it has been submitted that DRC-07 itself may not be issued for more than one FY. Hence adjudication proceedings may also be initiated, conducted and included, for one FY at a time, only. 28. With respect to challenge raised in Writ Tax No. 2247 of 2025, an additional ground based on Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts has been pressed. It has been pointed out that a SCN was issued on 18.01.2021 and order passed on 08.12.2021 under Section 122 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act. Later, the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 30.04.2022 was issued by the CGST authorities. That is clearly barred on the principle contained in Section 6(2)(b) of the Acts. 29. Next, Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Tax No. 4965 of 2025 has also adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate. He has pressed additional ground that no adjudication proceeding may have arisen because the recipient disclosed higher value and for that reason only short payment has been alleged. 1 All. M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 219 30. Mr. Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel appearing in Writ Tax Nos. 1000 of 2025 and 1119 of 2025, has adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhruv Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate. 31. Last, besides adopting the submissions advanced by other counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel appearing in Writ Tax No. 2537 of 2025 would submit, in the present case, the assessee was issued a composite notice for FYs 2017-18 and 2018-19. Referring extensively to the provisions of the Acts, he would stress that assessment may be made for a FY or its part, but never for more than one FY. He has taken us through the provisions for registration; Section 31 providing for issuance of Tax Invoice; Section 36 pertaining to period of retention of books of account; Section 37 pertaining to furnishing details of outward supplies; Section 39 pertaining to filing of annual returns; Section 49 pertaining to payment of tax, interest penalty and other amounts; the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Acts pertaining to assessment including Section 59 pertaining to self-assessment, Section 60 pertaining to provisional assessment, Section 62 pertaining to assessment of non-filers (of return), Section 63 pertaining to assessment of unregistered persons. Reference has also been made to Section 35 of the Acts pertaining to audit provisions to be read with Rule 101, that clearly stipulates that audit may be done for a FY or a part thereof, or multiples thereof. Thus, wherever the legislature has permitted a single proceeding to encompass 'tax period' beyond one FY, it has specifically provided for the same using the expression "multiples thereof". To the extent no legislative intendment may exist either on a plain reading of Section 73 or Section 74 of the Acts, those proceedings must remain confined to 'period' not exceeding one FY, through one SCN. 32. Reference has also been made to the amnesty schemes brought under the Acts that were introduced and enforced keeping in mind the principle of one FY being one assessment unit. The concept of multiple 'tax periods' being bunched into a single proceeding under the Acts is alien to the basic scheme of the Acts. Even offences and compounding measures have been provided under the Acts on a Financial Year basis only. 33. Meeting the above submissions, Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the revenue has first pointed out that the provisions of Section 74 of the Acts are pari materia to provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Heavily relying on the reasoning offered by the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders (supra), he would submit, there is no bar in law to issue a single SCN for multiple 'tax periods'. He has placed great reliance on the true import of Section 74 (10) of the Acts, to submit - the same is only a time limitation provision but not a provision to limit the scope of the proceedings initiated under a SCN. The said provision only provides the end date for termination of an adjudication proceeding. For that purpose, the legislature thought it fit to prescribe the outside time limit with reference to the last date of filing annual return for a tax period for which adjudication notice may have been issued. It does not limit or define the scope of the SCN. Rather, it defines the end point of time for such proceedings. Relying by the dozen, Shri Awasthi has placed before us decisions and orders of other High Courts including some not interfered with by the Supreme Court, upon Special Leave to Appeal filed there against. Reliance has also been placed on M/s Mathur Polymers (supra) against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 50279 of 2025 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.11.2025 and other decisions of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in R.K. Ispat Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors., dated 30.9.2025; Kerala High Court in X.L. Interiors vs Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence), 220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2024) 25 Centax 416 (Ker.), Calcutta High Court in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs Union of India, (2024) 25 Centax 430 (Cal.); Delhi High Court in Delhi Foils vs Additional Commissioner, (2025) 31 Centax 253 (Del.); Bombay High Court in Riocare India Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner, CGST and C.Ex., (2025) 95 GSTL 39 (Bom.) 34. Relying on a Circular issued by the CBIC dated 15.09.2025, it has been stressed, in view of pan-India application of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017, a singular interpretation made in favour of the revenue is being enforced. 35. Then relying on Sangeeta Singh vs Union of India (UOI) & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 484, it has been stressed, the decisions of the other High Courts relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to the extent they seek to supply casus omissus without pre-conditions established therefor, do not lay down the correct law. 36. Next, reliance has been placed on Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates & Ors., (2025) INSC 1023 and Grasim Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002) 4 SCC 297. 37. Mr. Gaurav Mahajan learned counsel for the revenue in some of the other matters has first adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi. Second, he would submit, GST laws are unique. They are transaction based, not only for the purpose of levy or impost of tax but also for adjudication of disputes as well. To the extent a dispute may arise with respect to levy or collection of the correct tax amount, the same may be settled through proper adjudication proceedings involving similar transactions, by the same assessee or the same set of assessees. For resolution of such disputes, the adjudication proceedings do not recognize the end boundaries of individual FYs, arising from regular returns filed by the parties to a dispute i.e. assessees. If a SCN issued involves other disputes for which jurisdictional facts may not be established, that issue may remain open to challenge in proper facts. 38. Last, it has been submitted, no prejudice may be caused to the petitioners by issuance of a common Show Cause Notice. 39. Mr. N.C. Gupta learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sudarshan Singh learned counsel for Union has also adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi.