High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 KL CK 4264

M/S. Max Agencies vs Intelligence Officer & Ors.

High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam · Decided on 24 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
CASE NUMBER
WP(C) NO. 32249 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 241 words

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Exts.P3 and P4 composite Show Cause Notices which were issued by the respondents for multiple financial years namely, 2020-2021 to 2023-2024 and 2020-2021 to 2021-2022 respectively. The main challenge raised against the sustainability of the same is that, issuance of a composite notice for multiple assessment years was found to be not legally sustainable as per the decision rendered by this Court in Joint Commissioner (Intelligence & Enforcement) v. M/s. Lakshmi Mobiles Accessories [2025 KHC OnLine 149] and Tharayil Medicals (M/s.), Thrissur v. Deputy Commissioner, Thrissur [2025 KHC OnLine 467].

2.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I find merits in the said submission, in view of the fact that, such a finding was indeed entered into by the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions referred to above.

In such circumstances, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in the above referred judgments, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P3 and P4, granting liberty to the respondent to issue separate notices for the relevant assessment years. However, the period from the date of Exts.P3 and P4 till the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for initiating fresh proceeding. All the other contentions of the parties are left open.