Held - We find that bare perusal of section 6 of the Act, especially Section 6(2)(b), when read with the Clarification dated 05.10.2018, further read with Clarification dated 22.06.2020, when read together, it clearly denotes and implies that it is a chain of a particular event happening under the Act and every & any enquiry/investigation carried out at the behest of any of the Department are interrelated.

We are little hesitant to a.....

Held - It may be noted that the communication dated 10.05.2023 was issued by the Anti-Evasion Department of the GST for limited inquiry in connection with irregular availment of ITC during the period 2018- 19 to 2022-23 under the CGST, 2017 and as such has required the petitioner to produce (i) Ledger of purchase and sales for period November, 18 to March, 2023, (ii) Ledger of ITC availed for period Nov 18 to Mar 2.....

Held - Along with the reply filed by respondent No.1 they have placed on record letter dated 02.02.2023, Annexure R1/1. 

In the afore-said document, i.e Annexure R-3/1, it is stated that the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (GST) has informed the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (ST) Gurugram (South) that investigation against M/s Sanraj Metal Pvt. Ltd. be transferred to the office of Directorate General of Goods and.....

Held - There is no material shown to exist that any earlier audit had been permitted or directed under Section 65 of the Act and insofar as plain reading of the provisions do not suggest any bar in exercise of that power, if the assessee had faced any earlier proceedings under Section 74 of the Act with respect to Input Tax Credit, excess claimed, there is no inherent legal infirmity shown to exist in the audit having been directed, keeping in.....

Held - The preliminary proceedings could not have been initiated by the second respondent when proceeding initiated by the first respondent for the very same amount on the very same allegation was not taken to the logical end. When the statutory appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the first respondent had dropped the proceedings. It is very crucial to note that from the final report of the first respondent it is seen that the pr.....

Held - Considering the submissions of both the sides and also noticing the issue raised before this Court, we are of the opinion that mere ground of alternative remedy being available will not be the reason for this Court to not entertain this petition. 

The petitioner has pressed for interim relief of the nature that both the proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 30.11.2022 be stayed. In wake of the fact that.....