Writ petition dismissed as premature, petitioner advised to respond to show-cause notice. Assessing officer to proceed as per law.

The court dismissed the writ petition as premature, advising the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice and participate in the proceedings. The court emphasized that the assessing officer should proceed according to the law without interference, highlighting the availability of statutory mechanisms for addressing grievances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show-cause notice issued under the Finance Act, 1994 after the introduction of the GST Act, 2017.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of the respondent to demand documents for audit under the repealed Finance Act, 1994.
3. Applicability of Section 173 and 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
4. Legality of the audit proceedings initiated under the Finance Act, 1994 post-GST regime.
5. Prematurity of the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioner, M/s Matrika Infrastructure Private Limited, contested the show-cause notice dated 01.01.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) Central Tax, CGST, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore. The petitioner argued that the notice demanding documents for audit was invalid as the Finance Act, 1994 had been repealed by the introduction of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner relied on Sections 173 and 174 of the GST Act, asserting that these provisions nullified the authority to issue such notices under the old law.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority to Demand Documents:
The petitioner contended that the internal audit demanded by respondent No.5 was not defined under the Finance Act, 1994, and thus, the respondent lacked the authority to conduct the audit and demand documents. The petitioner further argued that the audit function is specialized and should be governed by specific provisions under Section 72A of the Finance Act, 1994, which were not applicable in this case.

3. Applicability of Section 173 and 174 of the GST Act, 2017:
The petitioner argued that Section 173 of the GST Act omitted the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 174 did not save Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, thus rendering any fresh audit proceedings under the repealed Act invalid. The respondents countered this by stating that the audit was conducted in accordance with statutory provisions and Circular No.181/7/2014/ST, and the show-cause notice was issued to protect revenue interests.

4. Legality of Audit Proceedings Post-GST Regime:
The petitioner claimed that the audit conducted for the period prior to the GST regime was illegal under the new GST laws. However, the court noted that Section 174(2) of the GST Act provides a saving clause, allowing for the continuation of investigations, inquiries, verifications, and other legal proceedings initiated under the repealed Act. The court referenced judgments from the Calcutta High Court and Gauhati High Court, which upheld the validity of such proceedings under the saving provisions of the GST Act.

5. Prematurity of the Writ Petition:
The court emphasized that the writ petition challenging the show-cause notice was premature. It cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Special Director Vs. Mohd. Ghulam and Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, which held that writ petitions should not be entertained against mere show-cause notices unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction. The court advised the petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice and raise all relevant grounds before the authority issuing the notice.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner should file a reply to the show-cause notice and participate in the proceedings before the authority. The court dismissed the writ petition as premature, allowing the assessing officer to proceed in accordance with the law without being influenced by the court's observations. The court did not find any merit in interfering with the show-cause notice at this stage, emphasizing the availability of a statutory mechanism for addressing the petitioner's grievances.

---