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>Section 6(2)(b) Bars Multiple GST Proceedings on Same Matter; No Further Audit Allowed Under Section 65</h1> <h3>Abdur Rouf Khan Versus Superintendent of Central Tax, Kolkata Audit-II Commissionerate, Group 31, Circle-V & Ors.</h3> Abdur Rouf Khan Versus Superintendent of Central Tax, Kolkata Audit-II Commissionerate, Group 31, Circle-V & Ors. - TMI ISSUES: Whether the initiation of audit proceedings by central authorities violates Section 6(2)(b) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 when state authorities have already adjudicated the same subject matter.Whether the audit observations and subsequent proceedings under Section 65 and Section 73 of the said Act are valid and lawful in light of prior orders passed by state authorities.Whether a fresh audit can be initiated for tax periods already covered by previous audits and adjudications.The scope and applicability of Section 6(2)(b) of the said Act in preventing multiple proceedings on the same subject matter by different authorities. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that Section 6(2)(b) of the said Act 'provides that where the proper officer under the State... have initiated any proceedings on the subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the said Act on the same subject matter.'The audit observations and proceedings initiated by the central authorities for the tax periods 2018-2019 to 2021-2022 are in conflict with Section 6(2)(b) since the state authorities had already adjudicated the identical issue for these periods.The initiation of fresh audit proceedings under Section 65 for tax periods already covered by prior audits and adjudications is impermissible; therefore, the audit should be restricted to the tax periods 2017-2018 and 2022-2023 only.The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of restricting audit proceedings to periods not previously adjudicated and held that the respondents are free to consider any representation made by the petitioner. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, particularly Section 6(2)(b), which bars initiation of duplicate proceedings on the same subject matter by different tax authorities.Precedent and statutory interpretation confirm that once state authorities have adjudicated an issue under Section 73, central authorities cannot initiate proceedings on the same matter.The Court noted that audit proceedings under Section 65 must comply with the limitation imposed by prior adjudications and that reopening audits for periods already covered would contravene the statutory bar.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the Court adhered to a strict reading of the statutory provisions to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and protect the taxpayer's rights under Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
