https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437782 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. en-us Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2025 16:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437782 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. Case-Laws GST Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437782