The Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed a legal issue involving the petitioner, M/s Ekta Enterprises, and the State of Himachal Pradesh. The case revolved around the issuance of a composite intimation in Form DRC-01A, covering multiple financial years from 2017-18 to 2023-24 under Section 74 of the CGST Act. This was followed by a composite show cause notice in Form DRC-01, issued without considering the petitioner's response to the initial intimation. The petitioner argued that combining demands for different financial years with varying subject matters was not permissible under GST law. The department, however, claimed that composite notices were valid when common issues spanned multiple years.

The central issue was whether such composite notices under Section 74 of the CGST Act, involving distinct subject matters across various financial years, were legally sustainable. The High Court concluded that issuing a composite DRC-01A and DRC-01 was impermissible when the subject matters differed across financial years. The Court emphasized the need for separate intimations and show cause notices for each financial year with distinct issues.

Read More: GST – Gujarat High Court: Revenue-neutral errors in debit/credit note reporting cannot justify ITC reversal; rectification of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be allowed [Order attached]

Without delving into the tax demand's merits, the Court set aside the composite intimation and show cause notice, along with all related proceedings. However, it allowed the department to initiate fresh proceedings in compliance with the law, within a reasonable timeframe. The Court also clarified that the limitation period would not hinder these fresh proceedings, provided they commenced promptly.