- Home
- General Issues
- Audit by Tax Authorities
- Validity of proceedings
- Whether parallel audit/search proceedings are valid when proceedings are already initiated by other tax authorities ?
Whether parallel audit/search proceedings are valid when proceedings are already initiated by other tax authorities ?
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes
Held - By virtue of cross-empowerment under Section 6(1) of the GST Act the State Proper Officer and the Central Proper Officer are appointed for all the purpose of the CGST Act and the OGST Act. Taking into consideration the events enumerated above, it is apparent that the exercise of power under Section 74 by the State Proper Officer based on the intelligence received is before the initiation of proceeding by the.....
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no
Held: At the stage of issuing a summons, the Department is yet to determine whether proceedings should be initiated against the assessee. Such evidence-gathering and inquiry do not constitute “proceedings” within the meaning of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The mere issuance of a summons cannot be equated with proceedings barred under the Act, as the subject matter cannot be ascertained solely throug.....
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes
Held - From a perusal of the orders, it would further transpire that an enforcement case was initiated to verify the veracity of the claim made by the petitioner as regards exempted/nil rated supply and it is pursuant thereto that three several orders have been passed. Insofar as the show cause notice issued by the CGST authorities dated 19th December, 2023 is concerned, I find that the same has been initiated for .....
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes
Held - Prima facie, the statute does not create any embargo on the authorities to proceed simultaneously under Chapter XIII and Chapter XIV of the said Act. However, at the same time, having regard to the special provision contained in Section 65(7) of the said Act and the respondent no.3 having conducted an audit and having issued a show cause, ordinarily, the registered taxable persons are not to be subjected to .....
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- yes
Held - It is not in dispute that it was the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, who initiated the proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 prior in point of time and it is out of sheer ignorance of such proceedings that the Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum- Proper Officer also proceeded by not only carrying out the raid in the premises of the peti.....
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:- no
Held - There is no ambiguity in the language of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST/OGST Act, which bars initiation of proceeding by a proper officer under CGST Act where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Act or the Union territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated proceeding on a subject matter.
The reason behind barring the initiation of proceeding on the same subject matter by the proper officer und.....
- Whether reimbursement of expenses is leviable to GST?
- Whether input tax credit is admissible if invoice/debit note does not appear in Form GSTR-2A/2B or tax is not paid by supplier ?
- Whether marketing and sales promotion services to customers located outside India is intermediary or export of services ?
- Whether order / show cause notice is valid if passed without pre-show cause notice consultation or GST DRC-01 (summary SCN) or GST DRC-01A (tax intimation notice) ?
- Whether recovery proceedings can be initiated if assessee is willing to file an appeal ?
- Whether input tax credit can be transferred to the transferee entity in case of an inter-state business transfer ?
- Whether interest is payable for the period during which the reply to the deficiency memo remains pending ?
- Whether combined show cause notice can be issued covering multiple financial years ?
- Whether tax can be recovered by Department without prior intimation in Form DRC-01D ?
- Whether a penalty equal to 200% of the tax amount can be demanded in case of detention or seizure of goods ?