Decided 16 October 2026. The Chandigarh Bench of GSTAT has held that a single show cause notice covering several financial years is valid, following the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in Mathur Polymers. But it set aside invocation of section 74 because the notice only recited boilerplate words about suppression, and remanded the matter to be decided as if issued under section 73.
Case at a glance
| Case | M/s RLCR 7 Super Market v. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST Chandigarh & Ors. |
| Forum | GSTAT, State Bench Chandigarh (Court I) |
| Appeal No. | APL/13/CHD/2026 |
| Date of order | 16 October 2026 |
| Period | July 2017 to March 2022 (audit) |
| Demand | Tax ₹3,46,343 under section 74 with equal penalty |
| Result | Section 74 set aside; remanded for redetermination under section 73 |
Facts of the case
After an audit of July 2017 to March 2022, a consolidated SCN dated 30.09.2023 was issued and a demand of ₹3,46,343 was confirmed under section 74 with equal penalty. The appellate authority gave relief of only ₹4,370.
The disputes were a 2A-3B difference of ₹1,54,194 for FY 2021-22 said to be prior-year ITC, an IGST appropriation difference, and ₹28,474 of ITC taken under the wrong head without revenue loss.
Issue before the Tribunal
Is a consolidated SCN for multiple years valid, and was section 74 rightly invoked?
What the Tribunal held
- Consolidated SCN: following Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders and Mathur Polymers (SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.11.2025) and earlier GSTAT benches, a single notice for multiple years is valid absent prejudice. The Bombay High Court has referred the question to a larger bench in Rollmet LLP.
- Merits: the taxpayer must be allowed to produce evidence that the excess ITC related to the previous year (shown in GSTR-9 Table 8C and 13) and that wrong-head credit caused no revenue loss. These were remanded.
- Section 74: the SCN only said the taxpayer suppressed facts and that the issue would not have been found without audit. All ITC was declared in returns. Following Uniworth Textiles and Tata Steel v. Union of India (Supreme Court), foundational facts of fraud must appear in the notice; mechanical recital is not enough.
- The section 74 demand and penalty were set aside; tax, if any, is to be determined under section 75(2) as if the notice were under section 73. Interest under section 50 follows tax.
Practical takeaways for taxpayers
- Do not rely on 'consolidated SCN is invalid' as your main defence; most forums now uphold such notices.
- Challenge section 74 where the notice merely recites 'suppression' and the data was in your returns; Tata Steel (Supreme Court) is the leading authority.
- Use GSTR-9 Tables 8C and 13 to explain ITC of the previous year availed in the next year.
Frequently asked questions
Is a single GST notice for several years valid?
Delhi High Court and several GSTAT benches say yes, absent prejudice; the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in Mathur Polymers.
What happens when section 74 is set aside?
Under section 75(2), the officer redetermines tax as if the notice had been issued under section 73, with lower penalty.
Facing a similar GST dispute?
GST Folio prepares replies to show cause notices, appeals before the Appellate Authority and GSTAT, refund claims and ITC reconciliations for businesses across India. Call or WhatsApp +91 80513 31315 or email gstfolio@zohomail.in.
This summary is based on the order of the GST Appellate Tribunal, State Bench Chandigarh in Appeal No. APL/13/CHD/2026. It is general information, not legal advice; the outcome of any case depends on its own facts and the full text of the order.