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>Taxpayers Protected: GST Audit Periods Shielded from Duplicate Show Cause Notices, Jurisdictional Validity Confirmed</h1> <h3>M/s JK Chemicals & Anr. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors</h3> M/s JK Chemicals & Anr. Versus The Assistant Commissioner Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors - TMI Issues:Challenge to show cause-cum-demand notice under Sections 73/74 of WBGST & CGST Act, 2017; Discrepancies in audit proceedings; Authority to issue show cause notice; Prima facie case based on audit findings; Overlapping period of show cause notice and audit proceedings; Jurisdictional issue.Analysis:The judgment involves a challenge to a show cause-cum-demand notice issued under Sections 73/74 of the WBGST & CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, had undergone GST audit for the period from July 2017 to March 2022, resulting in the identification of discrepancies and subsequent payment of tax, interest, and penalty. The audit concluded with a Final Audit Report indicating satisfaction with the discharge of statutory liability. The petitioner contested the issuance of a further show cause notice for the period 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2023-24, arguing that it exceeded the authority as audit findings had been addressed and payments made accordingly.The petitioner relied on a judgment from a Division Bench to support the contention that no show cause notice should be issued for a period already covered by audit proceedings. The respondent, representing CGST & CX authority, defended the notice issuance, highlighting that the entire period covered in the show cause notice was not part of the audit and emphasized the authority under Section 65(7) to initiate proceedings as necessary. The court acknowledged the audit findings and payments made by the petitioner, indicating that proceedings cannot be initiated for the audited period. However, since the show cause notice partially overlapped with the audit period, the court directed the petitioner to respond to the notice within 15 days and allowed for further adjudication post-response.The court decided that the jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition warranted a hearing and instructed the filing of an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks. The parties were given specific timelines for filing replies and were directed to act based on the official order copy from the Court's website. The judgment balanced the audit findings, the issuance of the show cause notice, and the need for a comprehensive response from the petitioner before further adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
