HC: GST Proceedings Not Permitted for the Same Time by Authorities

Under Section 65 of the CGST Act, the Calcutta High Court ruled that as the audit proceedings would have started already, the same would be good that the proceedings must be carried to their suitable end. The Anti-Evasion and Range Office has executed the proceedings for the identical duration and would not be carried on.

The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has seen that three wings of the identical department are proceeding against the appellants for a similar duration.

The taxpayer, 4 problems were being mentioned for the same duration two of which cited by the audit were accepted via the taxpayer along with the needed tax and interest paid. For the other 2 issues, the taxpayer contended that their reply to the notice along with the matter would not be carried to its analytical end. While the other two wings of the department, the Anti-Evasion wing, and the Range Office have gone against the taxpayer by giving the notice for the identical duration for which the audit proceedings would have been started already.

Respondent provided that against the taxpayer the three wings of the department proceeded since the range office was not being learned about the proceedings executed via Audit Commissionerate also the Anti-Evasion has no information about that.

The court permitted the Superintendent, CGST to provide the show cause notice to the taxpayer for a duration of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the server’s copy of the judgment and order and afford a reasonable opportunity to the taxpayer to furnish their answer including with documents. A chance to get a personal hearing would be provided to the taxpayer’s authorized representative, either in physical or virtual mode. A speaking order would be provided on the advantage and as per the law within 3 weeks of the outcome of the personal hearing.

The court has bounded the other officials from proceedings against the taxpayers for the identical duration for which the measures would be executed by the Superintendent, CGST.

Case Title	M/s. R. P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Superintendent, CGST & CX
Citation	M.A.T. No.1595 of 2022 With I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
Date	30.09.2022
Counsel For Appellant	Advocates Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal and Jitesh Sah
Counsel For Respondent	Advocate K. K. Maiti
Calcutta High Court	Read Order