GST Dept Can’t Be Prevented From Conducting Preliminary Inquiry Relating To Books Of Accounts : Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the GST department cannot be prevented from conducting preliminary inquiry relating to books of accounts of a registered person.

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that the audit is akin to a preliminary inquiry and the Department ought not been prevented from conducting preliminary inquiry relating to the books of accounts of a registered person and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the concerned registered person.

The petitioner/assessee assailed the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 65 of the CGST Act, 2017, for conducting audit.

The petitioner contended that the notice demands several documents which were already made available while conducting anti-evasion action and notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act, whereafter tax demand from the period 2017-18 up to 2021-22, amounting to Rs.70,35,44,181/- and interest amounting to Rs.43,29,194/- was raised and deposited by the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted that after the proceedings had ended, a fresh proceedings under Section 65 of the GST Act ought not have been initiated, and it is a cause of great harassment to the petitioners, who are ready to get an audit done for the year 2022-23.

The petitioner contended that for FY 2018-19, a demand has been raised totalling to Rs.94,86,762/-, which was later on dropped, and an amount of Rs.11,84,867 was confirmed towards the excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). There was no occasion for the respondents to initiate the audit afresh for the concerned Financial Year 2017-18 to 2021-22.

The court while rejecting the contention of the assessee stated that the respondents have already taken action under Section 73 of the  CGST Act, would not be a ground to restrain the authorities from conducting audit, as the audit may result in detection of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or it may be even otherwise, to the benefit of the concerned registered person. 

The court while refusing to interfere in the proceedings held that in the event that it is found that the tax has been evaded fraudulently, the power is available to the Department to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the  CGST Act, independent of the proceedings which may have been undertaken under Section 73 of the  CGST Act.

Read More: Non-Replying To SCN : Allahabad High Court Asks Assessee To Pre-Deposit 50% Of Disputed Tax 

Case Details

Case Title: MAG Filters And Equipments Private Limited Versus Commissioner Of CGST Audit Gurugram And Other

Case No.:  CWP-33348-2024

Date: 11.12.2024

Counsel For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Senior Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel

Mariya Paliwala
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Govt. Clarifies On GST Exemption On RBI Regulated Payment Aggregators On settlement Of Up To Rs. 2K

The Government has issued clarification on GST exemption on RBI Regulated Payment…

GST Sections Every Businessman Must Know

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) law, implemented in India on July…

Delhi High Court Refuses To Interrupt In SCN Proceedings Against Accused Of Availing Fraudulent IGST Refund By Creating Fake Firms

The Delhi High Court has refused to interrupt in Show Cause Notice…

Non-Filing Of Monthly Return Amounts To Wilful Suppression Of Fact Under GST: Andhra Pradesh High Court Uphold Penalty

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the penalty and held that…