The GST Policy Wing vide its letter dated 16 September 2025, issued their comments in relation to the issue of the legality of bunching multiple financial years into a single demand notice under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“the Act”). Key comments are summarised hereinbelow:

1. Composite SCNs for multiple financial years are legally permissible under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act

   A combined reading of Sections 73(1), 73(3), 74(1) and 74(3) of the Act places no restriction on the period covered by any SCN. The proper officer may issue a notice for any period of non-payment, short payment, erroneous refund or wrongful ITC, and may also issue additional statements for other periods. Since year-wise notices are not required, consolidated SCNs are fully permissible and promotes efficiency while reducing duplication for both the department and the taxpayer.

2. Composite SCNs for multiple financial years do not hit the limitation period provided under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act

   Sections 73(10) and 74(10) of the Act prescribe clear limitation periods of three years and five years respectively, counted from the due date for filing the annual return for each financial year.

   Consolidated notices or orders remain within the statutory scheme because the limitation period applies separately to every financial year included. Consolidation functions only as a procedural mechanism and does not extend, modify or dilute the statutory timelines. Each financial year continues to be treated as a distinct period for the purpose of limitation.

3. Misinterpretation of ‘tax period’ and ‘any period’ under Sections 73(3) and 74(3) of the Act

   Sections 73 and 74 of the Act use the terms “for any period” and “for such periods” respectively and expressly allow a statement to act as a deemed notice for additional periods when the grounds remain the same.

   Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI [W.P.(C) 4853/2025 dated July 29, 2025] [2025-VIL-806-DEL] held that a consolidated SCN for multiple financial years is permissible under the Act.

4. Judgements of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and the High Court of Kerela are distinguishable and not binding pan-India 

   The decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble High Court of Kerela in the cases M/s Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST, W.P. 33164 of 2023, W.M.P. 32855 of 2023 (Madras HC) and M/s Tharayil Medicals v. Union of India, W.A. 627 of 2025 (Kerela HC), are binding only within the territorial jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of these respective High Courts. These rulings cannot serve as binding precedents for authorities in other States or Union Territories.

5. Impact of composite SCNs for multiple financial years on benefits provided under the Amnesty Scheme under section 128A of the CGST Act

   Circular No. 248/05/2025-GST dated 27.03.2025 confirms that eligibility remains intact even when a notice covers both periods within and outside the amnesty scheme. Rules 164(4) and 164(7) of the CGST Rules, 2017 allows taxpayers to pay and apply for relief for the eligible years (i.e., 2017–18 to 2019–20) while separately contesting demands for other years.

6. Validity of Proceedings under Section 160 of the Act

   Section 160(1) of the Act makes it clear that proceedings do not become invalid merely due to procedural defects so long as they are in accordance with the intents, purposes and requirements of the Act. Therefore, even if consolidating multiple years into a single SCN is viewed as an irregularity, the proceedings remain valid as long as they are issued within the prescribed timelines and align with the objectives of the Act.

Click to download a copy of the CBIC Circular