Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2022 (10) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of 2022 filed by the appellants. The said writ petition was filed praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued by the concerned CGST and CX Headquarters, Anti Evasion, Kolkata North Commissionerate insofar as it relates to financial year 2017-2018 to 2019 - 2020 for which an audit under Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017 has been conducted by the superintendent of concerned CGST and CX, Circle - II, Kolkata Audit - I Commissionerate; for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notices issued by the Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range -III, Barrackpore Division, Kolkata North Commissioenrate insofar as the same relates to the financial year 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 for which an audit under Section 65 of the CGST ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as accepted by the appellants and the necessary tax and interest were remitted and for the remaining two issues, the appellants had submitted their response to the notice and the matter has not been taken to the logical end. In the meantime, the other two wings of the department, viz. Anti Evasion wing as well as the Range Office have also proceeded against the appellants by issuing notices for the very same period for which audit proceedings under Section 65 of the Act has already commenced. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the three wings of the department are proceeding against the appellants because the Range office was not aware about the proceedings initiated by the Audit ....