JUDGMENT : M. Zothankhuma, J. 1 . Heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. L. Gope and Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsels appearing for the respondent. 2. The present appeal makes a challenge to the Final Order No. 75177/2022 dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata, in Service Tax Appeal No. 75509/2022 by which the appellant’s demand for Service Tax was held to be not sustainable, on the ground that the same had been made merely on the basis of Form 26 AS and by granting an extended period of limitation by the Adjudicating Authority for making such a claim. 3 . The substantial questions of law that were framed and the Preliminary objection, which is question No. (iii), are as follows: “(i) Whether the Tax Authorities can raise and confirm a Service Tax demand solely on the basis of the entries in Form 26-AS issued by the Income Tax Department, which has not been rebutted by an assessee. (ii) Whether the CESTAT, Kolkata was right in holding that the investigation and the consequential show-cause-notice issued to an assessee was not permissible, by invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. (iii) Whether the appellant could have filed an appeal on the basis of a composite notice demanding Service Tax from 4 (four) assessment years, the total of which crosses the monetary limit of Rupees 2 Crores, without any of the Service Tax for each individual assessment year having crossed the above threshold.” 4. The appellant challenges the Final Order No.75177/2024 dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned CESTAT, Kolkata on various grounds, one being that the learned Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate the respondent/assessee's conduct, which involves non- compliance with statutory requirements and failure to furnish documentary evidence i.e. suppression of facts, despite being given ample opportunity to give reasons why Service Tax should not be paid for the period from 2014-2015 to 2017-2018. 5. The case of the appellant is that the respondent/assessee did not submit any written reply to the Demand-cum-Show-Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020. It did not provide work orders, payment vouchers or running bills to support its contention that the services provided were not liable to Service Tax. 5. The case of the appellant is that the respondent/assessee did not submit any written reply to the Demand-cum-Show-Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020. It did not provide work orders, payment vouchers or running bills to support its contention that the services provided were not liable to Service Tax. Instead, reliance was placed on income tax records including Form-26AS and Audited Financial Statements, which by themselves were insufficient to rebut the Service Tax demand. 6. The further case of the appellant is that the learned Appellate Tribunal erred in concluding that Service Tax demand based solely on Form-26AS was unsustainable. Also in the absence of any supporting documents or explanation from the respondent/assessee, the Adjudicating Authority was justified in confirming the Service Tax demand of Rs.2,60,99,364/-, for the period from 2014-2015 to 2017-2018. 7. The respondent's case on the other hand is that the assessee in their reply to the Demand-cum-Show- Cause Notice, vide letter dated 20-02-2021, prayed for allowing them 30 days’ time to submit relevant documents, besides the Form-26AS for the years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, Audited Balance Sheets and copies of the Income Tax Returns submitted for the above period. Further, since they could not locate Work Orders relating to the earlier years, they prayed for time from the Adjudicating Authority to collect the required documents and submit the same. However, the same was denied to them. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the demand for Service Tax by the CGST can only be made in respect of a particular assessment/financial year. She submits that in the present case, the Service Tax demand made by the CGST Authority from the respondent/assessee, is for the years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, which is reflected in paragraph-19 of the order dated 23.03.2022 issued by the Adjudicating Authority, which is as follows : 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the demand for Service Tax made by the appellant had been made in respect of exempted items, in terms of Section 66(D)(a) (iii) and (e) of the Finance Act, 1994, as per the finding of the learned CESTAT. Thus even on merit, the demand for service tax could not have been raised by the appellant. 10. Thus even on merit, the demand for service tax could not have been raised by the appellant. 10. The above being said, the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the present appeal filed by the CGST Authority was not maintainable, on the ground that the same was not in consonance with the Notification dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Finance Ministry, Legal Cell, regarding the attempt by the Government to reduce Government litigation, by raising the monetary limits for filing Appeals by the departments before the learned CESTAT, High Courts and Supreme Court in Central Excise and Service matters, which are as follows : 11. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submits that the year-wise Service Tax demand for each of the above assessment years is less than Rs. 2 crores and it is only when all the 4 years of Service Tax demand are added up, has the amount of claimed Service Tax crossed Rs.2 crores. She submits that in terms of the Notification dated 06-08-2024 issued by the Finance Ministry, the present appeal is not maintainable, as the demand for Service Tax would have to be done on year-wise basis and not by consolidating and adding up all the Service Tax demand for 4 years, as has been done in the present case. She submits that when the Service Tax demand for different years are added up, like has been done in the present case, even those cases where Service Tax demands could not have been made due to limitation, are also brought into the fold of the demand for payment of Service Tax, along with those demands which are within the limitation period. She also submits that in an appeal filed by the appellant before this Court, where the Service Tax demand by the CGST was below Rs.2 crores, the said appeal had been withdrawn by the CGST, vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in C.Ex.App. No.5/2020. She accordingly submits that the present appeal should also be dismissed in view of the Notification dated 06-08-2024. 12. Ms. M. L. Gope, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of her submissions, has relied upon the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. No.5/2020. She accordingly submits that the present appeal should also be dismissed in view of the Notification dated 06-08-2024. 12. Ms. M. L. Gope, learned counsel for the respondent, in support of her submissions, has relied upon the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Polycott Corporation reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2148 and in the case of Aasawa Brothers Corporate Avenue, Through its Authorzed Partner Vs. Union of India, Through Hits Revenue Secretary and Ors., reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1616. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. Vs. State of U.P and Ors, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine All 1608 has held that it is a settled principle of law that each year is a separate assessment year for the purpose of assessment. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that when the respondent had filed its appeal before the CESTAT, Kolkata against the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority, it had filed one appeal. However, in terms of the stand taken by the respondent, they should have filed 4 different appeals before the learned CESTAT, Kolkata, and inasmuch as, the Service Tax payable by the respondent pertains to 4 different assessment years. 15. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no bar for making a composite notice of different assessment years and clubbing the Service Tax payable for different assessment years. He also submits that if the threshold of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- can be achieved, by clubbing the Service Tax payable by a party for different assessment years, an appeal would lie before the High Court in terms of the said notification dated 06.08.2024. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the Case of M/s Rasidul Hoque & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam, Through the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Ministry of Finance and Taxation & Ors. reported in 2024 0 Supreme (AS) 9346 and in the case of M/s Mathur Polymers Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) No. 2394/2025 & CM Appl. No. 11289/2025 decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 16. reported in 2024 0 Supreme (AS) 9346 and in the case of M/s Mathur Polymers Vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) No. 2394/2025 & CM Appl. No. 11289/2025 decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that Circular No. 207/1/2024 dated 26.06.2024, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing, has clearly stated in paragraph 3(viii) that in a composite order, which disposes more than one appeal/demand notice, the monetary limits shall be applicable on the total amount of tax/interest/penalty/late fee, as the case may be and not on the amount involved on an individual appeal or demand notice. 17. On the other hand, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that even though the respondent had claimed that the service provided by the respondent was exempted from Service Tax under Section 66(D)(a)(iii) and (e) of the Finance Act, 1994, no proof of such exempted service had been provided by the respondent by way of documents, as had been demanded by the appellant. 18. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 19. The appellants had issued a consolidated show cause notice dated 31/12/2020 demanding payment of Service Tax for 4(four) different assessment years, as the same had not been paid by the respondent assesse on account of suppression of facts and documents. The respondent assesse prayed for time stating that it could not trace some of it’s documents to give a proper reply to the show cause notice. 20. The Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 23-03-2022, then passed the demand for Service Tax, as follows: “a. I confirm the demand of Service Tax and cess amounting to Rs. 2,60,99,364/- (Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred and. Sixty Four only from M/s Rishu Enterprise for the period from 2014-15 (Oct-March) to 2017-18 (April-June) which is to be recovered in terms of proviso to Section 73(2) of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017 and order for recovery of same. b. I also order for recovery of interest at the applicable rates from M/s Rishu Enterprise on the amounts demanded at (a) above, in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. b. I also order for recovery of interest at the applicable rates from M/s Rishu Enterprise on the amounts demanded at (a) above, in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. c. I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,60,99,364/-(Rupees Two Crore Sixty Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Four only) on M/s Rishu Enterprise under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. However, in terms of second proviso to section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the notice has the option to pay 25% of the penalty imposed if they pay the entire amount of Service Tax demanded along with interest and such reduced penalty (here 25%) within thirty days from communication of this order. d. I impose penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) on M/s Rishu Enterprise under Section 70 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017 as amended for not filing ST-3 Returns for the relevant period and order for recovery of the same. e. I also impose penalty of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) on M/s Rishu Enterprise under Section 77 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Section 174 of the COST Act 2017 for failure to furnish information /documents sought by the department and order for recovery of the same." 21. The challenge made to the Adjudicating Authority order dated 23-03-2022 by the respondent/assessee before the learned CESTAT, Kolkata, Regional Bench-Court No.1, in Service Tax Appeal No.75509/2022 was allowed, vide Final Order No. 75177/2024 on 08-02- 2024, by holding that the demand of Service Tax was not sustainable against the respondent/assessee, merely on the basis of Form-26AS issued by the Income Tax Authority and also in view of the extended period of limitation granted by the Adjudicating Authority. 22. On considering the fact that a preliminary objection has been raised, in terms of the CBIC Instruction No. CBIC/160390/20/2024-JC-CBEC dated 6-8-2024, as to the maintainability of this appeal, we intend to first decide the issue raised in the Preliminary Objection. 23. The Preliminary Objection no. 22. On considering the fact that a preliminary objection has been raised, in terms of the CBIC Instruction No. CBIC/160390/20/2024-JC-CBEC dated 6-8-2024, as to the maintainability of this appeal, we intend to first decide the issue raised in the Preliminary Objection. 23. The Preliminary Objection no. (iii), is to the effect that a Central Excise Appeal before the High Court, in terms of CBIC instruction No. CBIC/160390/20/2024-JC-CBEC dated 6-8- 2024, would require the demand for Service Tax to be not less than the minimum monetary limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- for each individual assessment year, which is missing in the present appeal. The appellant has made a composite demand of Service Tax in respect of 4 (four) assessment years from 2014-15 to 2017-18, which in total amounts to Rs. 2,60,99,364/-, though the requirement of the above notification appears to require the appeal amount for each assessment year to be not less than Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. The preliminary objection has been made by the respondent, due to the Service Tax demand for each of the four assessment years, being below Rs. 2 crores. 24. The notification dated 06.08.2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Legal Cell) for reducing government litigation, by raising the monetary limits for filing appeals by CBIC before CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court in matters relating to Central Excise and Service Tax, provides as follows: "Subject: Reduction of Government litigation raising of monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court in legacy Central Excise & Service Tax-reg. In exercise of powers conferred by section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax vide section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, and in partial modification of the Board instructions issued from F. No. 390/Misc./ 163/ 2010-JC dated 17.08.2011, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs hereby fixes the following monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the CESTAT, High Court and Supreme Court: 2. This instruction applies only to legacy issues l.e., matters relating to Central Excise and Service Tax, and will apply to pending cases as well. 3. This instruction applies only to legacy issues l.e., matters relating to Central Excise and Service Tax, and will apply to pending cases as well. 3. Adverse judgements relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved - a. Case where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge; or b. Case where Notification/ Instruction / Order/ Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. 4. Except for the above, all other terms and conditions of Instructions dated 17.08.2011 stands. 5. Relevant extracts from Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are reproduced below for ease of reference- (2) Where, in pursuance of the orders or instructions or directions, issued under sub-section (1), the Central Excise Officer has not filed an appeal, application. revision or reference against any decision or order passed under the provisions of this Act, it shall not preclude such Central Excise Officer from filing appeal. application, revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law. (3) Notwithstanding the fact that no appeal, application, revision or reference has been filed by the Central Excise Officer pursuant to the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), no person, being a party in appeal. application, revision or reference shall contend that the Central Excise Officer has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing appeal, application, revision or reference. (4). The Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or court hearing such appeal, application, revision or reference shall have regard to the circumstances under which appeal, application, revision or reference was not filed by the Central Excise Officer in pursuance of the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1). 6. Difficulties faced in implementation of these Instructions, if any, may be brought to the knowledge of the Board." 25. Thus, for the purpose of reduction of government litigation, appeals by the CGST authority before a High Court would require the monetary value of the appeal to be of the minimum value of Rs. 2 crores. In the present case, the Service Tax demand made by the appellant from the respondent, is spread over 4 (four) assessment years, i.e., from 2014-15 to 2017-18. The service tax demand for each of the assessment year individually is less than Rs. 2 crores. 2 crores. In the present case, the Service Tax demand made by the appellant from the respondent, is spread over 4 (four) assessment years, i.e., from 2014-15 to 2017-18. The service tax demand for each of the assessment year individually is less than Rs. 2 crores. However, when the Service Tax demand for the 4 (four) assessment years is added up, the total Service Tax demand reaches the Rs. 2 crores benchmark. 26. Thus, a question arises as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant is maintainable in terms of the notification dated 06.08.2024, i.e., whether it is permissible to club together the Service Tax demand for 4(four) assessment years and file an appeal on the consolidated Service Tax or whether the Service Tax demand has to be considered only in respect of each individual assessment year. 27. The Service Tax demand made by the CGST Authority from the respondent/assessee for the years 2014-2015 to 2017- 2018 are as follows: As can be seen from the chart, the Service Tax demand for each assessment year is less than Rs. 2 crores. The Rs. 2 crores mark is reached only when all the service tax demand for 4 years is added together. 28. In the case of Polycott Corporation (supra), the Bombay High Court considered whether an appeal could have been filed before the High Court, if the tax demand did not exceed Rs.4,00,000/- in terms of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Instruction No.05/2008 dated May 15 th , 2008. Paragraph 5 of the said instruction No. 05/2008 states as follows: “5. It would be clear from the above that if in the case of an assessee if the disputed issues arise in more than one assessment year, appeals are to be filed only in respect of such assessment year or years in which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in para. 3. In other words, even if in respect of the same issue in respect of the same assessee for other assessment years the monetary limit is not more than Rs.4.00 lakhs, appeal need not be filed.Para.6 makes it clear that in such a case if an appeal is not filed there will be no presumption that the Income-Tax Department has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issues." 29. Paragraph 28 of the judgment of Polycott Corporation (supra) speaks of Paragraph 5 of the instruction No. 05/2008 dt 15-5-2008 which is as follows: "28. The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues in the case of every assessee. If, in the case of an assessee, the disputed issues, arise in more than one assessment year, appeal shall be filed, in respect of such assessment year or years in' which the tax effect in respect of the disputed issues exceeds the monetary limit specified in paragraph 3. No appeal shall be filed in respect of an assessment year or years in which the tax effect is less than the monetary limit specified in paragraph 3. In other words, henceforth, appeals will be filed only with reference to the tax effect in the relevant assessment year.” 30 . The Bombay High Court in the above case of Polycott Corporation (Supra) held that the Court has to consider the plain language of the paragraph and the object behind the said provisions and the object appeared to be not to burden Courts and Tribunals in respect of matters where the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit. It thus held that paragraph 5 of the Instructions made it clear that a duty was cast on the Assessing Officer, that even if disputed questions arose for more than one assessment year, then an appeal should be filed only in respect of those years where the monetary limit was specified in paragraph-3 of the Instruction. 31. In the case of Aasawa Brothers Corporate Avenue (Supra) , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was to consider whether the issuance of consolidated show-cause notices under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to "CGST Act") covering multiple financial years, was sustainable in law, in light of the binding precedents of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court, by referring to its earlier judgments in Milroc Good Earth Developers vs. Union of India (2025-TIOL- 1697-HC-MUM-GST) , held that a single consolidated show-cause notice covering multiple financial years cannot be issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act. It also held that the judgment in Milroc Good Earth Developers (Supra) had considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders Vs. It also held that the judgment in Milroc Good Earth Developers (Supra) had considered the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner, DGGSTI in WP(C) No. 4853/2025 and held that a consolidated notice spanning several years may be permissible, if the pattern of fraud may not be capable of being established in isolation of different financial years. Thus, when there is fraud, which is in a maze of transactions over several years, a consolidated notice may be permissible. However, in the normal course, consolidated notice was impermissible in the absence of exceptional circumstances relating to fraud,that was practiced over multiple financial years warranting such consolidation. Paragraph No. 20 & 21 of the judgment in the case of Aasawa Brothers Corporate Avenue (Supra) are as follows: “ 20. The statutory scheme under the CGST Act makes the limitation for determination of tax dependent upon the due date for furnishing the annual return for the respective financial year to which the demand relates. The limitation, therefore, runs independently for each financial year. Clubbing multiple financial years in a single show cause notice has the effect of aggregating distinct tax periods governed by separate limitation timelines, which may prejudice the assessee’s right to raise year-specific defences. 25 . This Court has consistently taken the view that a single show cause notice covering multiple financial years, in the absence of exceptional circumstances for relating to fraud that may be practiced over multiple financial years warranting such consolidation, is not sustainable in law. Judicial discipline and consistency require that we follow the binding precedents of this Court.” 32. In the case of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (supra) , the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with a matter relating to payment of tax under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax, 1948, held that it was a settled principle of law that each year was a separate assessment year for the purposes of assessment. 33. In the case of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (supra) , the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with a matter relating to payment of tax under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax, 1948, held that it was a settled principle of law that each year was a separate assessment year for the purposes of assessment. 33. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing had issued Circular No.207/1/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024 fixing monetary limits for filing appeals or applications by the Department before GSTAT, High Courts and Supreme Court for the purpose of reduction of Government litigation, wherein it was reflected at paragraph 3(viii) as follows : “3(viii) In a composite order which disposes more than one appeal/demand notice, the monetary limits shall be applicable on the total amount of tax/interest/penalty/late fee, as the case may be, and not on the amount involved in individual appeal or demand notice.” 34. In the case of M/s Mathur Polymers (supra) , the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was seized of a matter regarding a challenge made to a combined show-cause notice under Section 74(10) of the CGST Act in respect of allegations involving the fraudulent availment of ITC, where the transactions were spread over several financial years. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the above case held that in cases involving allegations of fraudulent availment of ITC spanning several years, a consolidated notice was permissible in terms of Section 74(10) of the CGST Act. 35. As can be seen from the decisions of the Bombay High Court, the issue of a composite notice in respect of different assessment years cannot be made, unless there is an allegation of fraud spanning several years and which may not be capable of being established, if the notice is issued in isolation of each assessment/financial year. 36. The decision submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent pertains to a composite notice being permitted by the Delhi High Court, only in cases of fraud, inasmuch as, fraud may not be capable of being established if the notice was issued in isolation of each assessment/financial year. 37. 36. The decision submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent pertains to a composite notice being permitted by the Delhi High Court, only in cases of fraud, inasmuch as, fraud may not be capable of being established if the notice was issued in isolation of each assessment/financial year. 37. The Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court in M/s Rasidul Hoque (supra) has held that the authorities had the competence and jurisdiction to pass a composite order for 2 financial years and that the same did not amount infraction of Section 74(10) & 73(1) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. 38. Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 states as follows : “(1) Where any Service Tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, Central Excise Officer may, within thirty months from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the Service Tax which has not been levied or paid or which has been short-levied or short-paid or the person to whom such tax refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice : Provided that where any Service Tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of- (a) fraud; or (b) collusion; or (c) willful mis-statement; or (d) suppression of facts, or (e) contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of Service Tax, by the person chargeable with the Service Tax or his agent, the provisions of this sub- section shall have effect, as if, for the words "thirty months", the words "five years" had been substituted. Explanation .- Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of thirty months or five years, as the case may be.” 39. A reading of the various provisions prima facie indicates that a consolidated notice demanding Service Tax, covering various financial years, to enable the appellants to reach the benchmark of 2 crores, is not permissible in terms of the notification dated 06/08/2024. A reading of the various provisions prima facie indicates that a consolidated notice demanding Service Tax, covering various financial years, to enable the appellants to reach the benchmark of 2 crores, is not permissible in terms of the notification dated 06/08/2024. It appears that the demand for Service Tax has to be calculated with respect to a particular assessment year in the normal course, or else the very purpose of the notification dated 06/08/2024 could be defeated. However, when there is a fraud allegedly played by the assessee and it is not known as to whether the unpaid Service Tax was the result of a maze of transactions spread over different years, thereby making it difficult to determine the exact Service Tax payable for different assessment years, making a composite notice comprising several assessment years for payment of a consolidated Service Tax appears to be permissible. Thus, in a case of fraud spanning over different assessment years, it cannot be said that a consolidated show cause notice would not come within the four corners of the notification dated 06/08/2024. 40. As can be seen from the case in hand, the limitation period for demand of Service Tax in terms of section 73 of the Service Tax Act provides for a period of 30 months from the relevant date, service of notice to the assesse. However, the proviso to section 73 provides that in cases of fraud, collision, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter-V of the Finance Act, 1994, the limitation period of 30 months would be substituted by the words “five years”. 41. In the case of Ambika Traders through proprietor vs. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication, DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North [ WP(C) 4853/2025 ], the Delhi High Court has held that in so far as fraudulently availed or utilized ITC is concerned, the language used in Section 74 (3) & (4) of the CGST Act provides “for any period” and “for such period” respectively, in so far as the issue of consolidated notice for various financial years was concerned. It thus held that a notice can be issued for a period which could be more than one financial year, in so far as the matter related to non-payment or short payment or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud. 42. It thus held that a notice can be issued for a period which could be more than one financial year, in so far as the matter related to non-payment or short payment or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized by reason of fraud. 42. In this case, the show cause notice dated 31/12/2020 that had been issued to the respondent was with regard to non-disclosure of the gross amount of taxable service provided by the respondent during the period from 2014-15 to 2017-18, by alleging intentional and deliberate suppression of information from the appellant, which was in contravention of section 67, read with section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the rules made thereunder. The show notice also stated that though the assessee had received a gross amount of Rs. 18,47,71,805/- during the said period, against which the assessee was to pay Service Tax of Rs. 2,60,99,364/-, the same had not been deposited. Thus the assessee was liable to make payment of the evaded Service Tax and was also liable for penal action and payment of interest under section 78 and 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 respectively. 43. The above being said, we have been taken through the recent decision of the Bombay High Court on 17.04.2026, passed in a batch of writ petitions, the lead case being Writ Petition No.16848/2025 “ M/s. Rollmet LLP Vs. The Union of India & Ors.” In M/s. Rollmet LLP(supra) the Bombay High Court has discussed the correctness of the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Milroc Good Earth Developers (supra) and also reflected on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ambika Traders(supra) and M/s Mathur Polymers (supra), which were not disturbed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the Bombay High Court in M/s. Rollmet LLP(supra) requested for placing the issue before it to a Larger Bench for a decision on the following questions of law, which are reflected in para 30 of the said judgment as under:- “1) Whether the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 73/74 of the CGST Act read with the provisions of sub-section (3) is in any manner controlled by the provisions of sub section (10), so as to create an embargo, on the department to issue a consolidated show cause notice for different years ? 2) Whether the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 73/74 of the CGST Act per se prohibits the issuance of single consolidated show cause notice for multiple financial years/tax periods? 3) What is the effect of Section 160 of the CGST Act on the proceedings initiated by the proper officer under Section(s) 73/74 of the CGST Act by issuance of a consolidated show cause notice for different periods? 4) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Milroc Good Earth Developers v/s Union of India & Ors., when it holds that the proper officer lacks authority to club various financial years/tax periods, in issuing a single consolidated show cause notice under Section 73(1) & (3)/74(1) & (3) of CGST Act lays down the correct position in law? 5) In terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, what is the legal position as brought about in the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Mathur Polymers (supra) ?” 44. Thus the issue in the present case is not with regard to fraud, but with regard to suppression of facts on the part of the respondent, for non-payment of their Service Tax, though it is the case of the respondent that the required documents had been submitted before the learned CESTAT. It is clear from the proviso to section 73 (1) of chapter -V of the Finance Act, 1994, that the limitation period for claiming Service Tax on grounds of suppression of facts is 5 years. 45. Though there appears to be no bar for issuing a composite notice for claiming Service Tax on the ground of suppression of facts, when the demand for Service Tax for each assessment year can be determined, the issue of whether an appeal can be filed in the High Court by consolidating the demand for Service Tax for 4 assessment years to reach the monetary limit would have to be decided. In the present case, the show cause notice dated 31/12/2020 has at para 19, clearly determined the Service Tax payable by the assessee for each of the 4(four) assessment years. In the present case, the show cause notice dated 31/12/2020 has at para 19, clearly determined the Service Tax payable by the assessee for each of the 4(four) assessment years. Though the demand of Service Tax for each assessment year is determinable, we need not go into the issue whether a composite demand notice for Service Tax, comprising different assessment years can be made, if the monetary limit in respect of the demanded/payable Service Tax, which is not time-barred for each assessment year, is not attained for filing an appeal. If the demand for Service Tax in respect of one of the assessment years is beyond the limitation period, the time barred demand cannot be made a part of the consolidated show cause notice. Thus, even if we are to assume that a consolidated demand for Service Tax comprising many assessment years can be made, the time-barred claim cannot be a part of the consolidated claims. 46 . Due to the above reasons, an additional substantial question of law has been framed, i.e., as to “whether the demand for Service Tax for any of the 4 (four) assessment years by the appellant is barred by Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, and if the demand of Service Tax for the 4 years is not barred by limitation, whether the total Service Tax for the 4 years would reach the monetary limit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs), in terms of the Notification dated 06.08.2024”, for filing this appeal in the High Court. 47 . On considering the chart given by the appellant with regard to the demand for service tax payable by the respondent for the years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 vis-à-vis the show cause notice issued on 31.12.2020, we find that the claim for Service Tax for the assessment year 2014-2015 is barred by limitation in terms of Section 71(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, despite invoking the extended period of limitation as provided in Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the demand for payment of Service Tax by the appellant can only be for the years 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, excluding the time-barred claim for the year 2014- 2015. As per the show cause notice/chart provided by the appellant regarding the claim for Service Tax, we find that the Service Tax demand for 4 assessment years is for a total amount of Rs. 2,60,99,364/-. As per the show cause notice/chart provided by the appellant regarding the claim for Service Tax, we find that the Service Tax demand for 4 assessment years is for a total amount of Rs. 2,60,99,364/-. However, the Service Tax payable for the year 2014-2015, which is time- barred, is for Rs. 61,99,462/-. Thus, the total valid demand for payment of Service Tax minus the barred claim is Rs. 1,98,99,902/-, which is below the monetary limit provided in the Notification dated 06.08.2024. As such, the appeal being not maintainable in terms of the above said notification and keeping in view of the fact that the appellant had withdrawn a similar case, i.e., C.Ex. App. 5/2020 (Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guwahati Vs. Sarvopari Impex Pvt. Ltd.), as the appeal amount therein was below the monetary limit, the present appeal is not maintainable. 48. The dismissal of the appeal has only been made in view of the non-maintainability of the present appeal, as the demand for Service Tax is hit by the monetary limit prescribed in the Notification dated 06.08.2024. The issue as to whether the demand for Service Tax can be added together, for overcoming the monetary limit provided in the Notification dated 06.08.2024, for filing an appeal in the High Court is left to be decided in an appropriate case. 49. For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands dismissed.