TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Authorities Validate Audit Notice, Uphold Right to Financial Scrutiny Despite Previous Examinations Under Section 74</h1> <h3>M/s. R.P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. Versus The Superintendent, CGST & CX, Circle – II, Group-10, Audit-I Commissionerate & Ors.</h3> CGST authorities issued a notice requesting financial documents for audit purposes. The petitioners challenged the notice, arguing redundancy due to prior ... Initiation of new proceeding or take any action against the petitioner, when audit in respect of very same financial years have already been completed by another wing of the department of the CGST - HELD THAT:- The petitioners relies on a decision of this Court in IDEAL UNIQUE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (4) TMI 1198 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and on perusal of the said decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench, it is found that the same is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case both on facts and on law. It appears that the present case is not like the said case. In the said case none of the proceedings initiated by the department was shown by taking a logical end or that the proceedings were initiated without affording any due opportunity to the petitioners therein. The impugned notice is almost a show-cause notice and it is also found that the same is neither without jurisdiction nor there is any procedural irregularities in initiating the impugned proceeding nor the impugned proceeding has been initiated in contravention of any statutory provisions of the statute and such the investigation, need not be interfered, by initiation of impugned anti evasion proceeding at this stage. Petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to impugned notice by CGST Authorities for furnishing financial documents already audited by another department.Analysis:The petitioners challenged an impugned notice dated 18th May, 2022 issued by Superintendent, Anti Evasion, CGST, requesting various financial documents for the financial years 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The petitioners argued that since the audit for the same financial years had already been completed by another department of the CGST, no new proceedings should be initiated. However, the petitioners could not cite any specific provision prohibiting the authority from initiating the anti-evasion proceeding. The petitioners relied on a previous court decision but the judge found the decision to be distinguishable and not applicable to the present case both on facts and law.The judge noted that in the previous case, the audit department had repeatedly issued spot memos, leading to a challenge regarding the jurisdiction of the audit department. The judge highlighted that in that case, none of the proceedings initiated by the department had been concluded logically or without affording due opportunity to the petitioners therein. However, in the present case, the judge found that the impugned notice was akin to a show-cause notice and was not without jurisdiction or procedural irregularities. The judge concluded that there was no contravention of any statutory provisions, and therefore, declined to interfere with the investigation by initiating the anti-evasion proceeding at that stage.Consequently, the judge dismissed the writ petition WPA 20025 of 2022, stating that based on the discussion and findings, there was no inclination to entertain the petition, and thus, it was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
