GST Proceedings Initiated By Anti Evasion And Range Office For The Same Period Is Not Permissible: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act have already commenced, it is appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to their logical end. The proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period will not be continued.The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has...
The Calcutta High Court has held that since the audit proceedings under Section 65 of the CGST Act have already commenced, it is appropriate that the proceedings should be taken to their logical end. The proceedings initiated by the Anti-Evasion and Range Office for the same period will not be continued.
The division bench of Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has observed that three wings of the same department are proceeding against the appellants for the same period.
The appellants/assessees submitted that four issues were pointed out for the same period, out of which two issues as pointed out by the audit were accepted by the appellants and the necessary tax and interest were remitted. For the remaining two issues, the appellants had submitted their response to the notice and the matter has not been taken to its logical end. In the meantime, the other two wings of the department, i.e., the Anti-Evasion wing as well as the Range Office, have also proceeded against the appellants by issuing notices for the same period for which audit proceedings have already commenced.
The department/respondents submitted that the three wings of the department were proceeding against the appellants because the Range office was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Audit Commissionerate and the Anti-Evasion also was not aware of the same. It is not clear as to why, in the present days of electronic communications available in the department, such parallel proceedings can be conducted by three wings of the same department for the same period.
The court allowed the Superintendent, CGST to issue show cause notice to the appellants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the server's copy of the judgement and order and afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to submit their reply along with documents. An opportunity for a personal hearing is granted to the appellant's authorised representative, either in physical or virtual mode. Speaking order will be issued on the merits and in accordance with the law within three weeks of the conclusion of the personal hearing.
The court restrained the other officials from proceeding further against the appellants in respect of the same period for which action has been initiated by the Superintendent, CGST.
Case Title: M/s. R. P. Buildcon Private Limited & Anr. Vs. The Superintendent, CGST & CX
Case No: M.A.T. No.1595 of 2022 With I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 320
Date: 30.09.2022
Counsel For Appellant: Advocates Ankit Kanodia, Megha Agarwal, Jitesh Sah
Counsel For Respondent: Advocate K. K. Maiti