Prior Section 74 proceedings do not automatically bar a Section 65(3) GST audit notice absent statutory prohibition or legal injury.

Prior proceedings under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 do not by themselves bar a notice for audit under Section 65(3) where the statute contains no express prohibition. The Court found no material showing that an earlier audit had been authorised under Section 65, and the petition did not plead facts establishing that the audit notice was legally impermissible or caused a demonstrable legal injury. In the absence of such a statutory or factual basis, extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not warranted, and the challenge to the audit notice was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice for audit under Section 65(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be quashed on the ground that the assessee had already faced proceedings under Section 74 of the same Act.

Analysis: The Court found no material showing that an earlier audit had been permitted or directed under Section 65, and the text of the statute did not disclose any inherent bar on the exercise of audit powers merely because proceedings under Section 74 had earlier been taken. The petition also did not plead facts showing that the audit was impermissible or unwarranted. In the absence of any demonstrated legal injury or infringement of law, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not called for.

Conclusion: The challenge to the audit notice was rejected and no interference was made in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior proceedings under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 do not, by themselves, bar an audit notice under Section 65(3) in the absence of a statutory prohibition or pleaded legal injury.

---