https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761926 The Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST audit notice issued under Section 65 of the Maharashtra SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that audit provisions did not apply since their registration was cancelled after the audit period but before the audit order. The court held that audit obligations under Section 65 continue even after de-registration, as Section 29(3) of the SGST Act requires discharge of obligations despite subsequent cancellation of registration. The preliminary audit revealed excess input tax credit claims of Rs.3,60,44,378/- and total tax liability of Rs.7,01,31,710/- for FY 2020-21. The court ruled that accepting the petitioner's interpretation would render Section 29(3) redundant, emphasizing harmonious construction of statutory provisions. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 May 2025 18:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761926 The Bombay HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a GST audit notice issued under Section 65 of the Maharashtra SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that audit provisions did not apply since their registration was cancelled after the audit period but before the audit order. The court held that audit obligations under Section 65 continue even after de-registration, as Section 29(3) of the SGST Act requires discharge of obligations despite subsequent cancellation of registration. The preliminary audit revealed excess input tax credit claims of Rs.3,60,44,378/- and total tax liability of Rs.7,01,31,710/- for FY 2020-21. The court ruled that accepting the petitioner's interpretation would render Section 29(3) redundant, emphasizing harmonious construction of statutory provisions. Case-Laws GST Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761926