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.....

Held - The respondents have also stated in their written instructions that once a detailed reply is sent by the petitioner stating their objections with regard to the impugned show cause notice, the same will be considered by them on merits. They have also categorically stated in their written instructions that if the defects are similar to the one mentioned in the show cause notice issued by the Central Authority, the said defects will be omi.....

Held - The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the three wings of the department are proceeding against the appellants because the Range office was not aware about 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 proce.....

Held - We find that such a procedure had not been adopted in the instant case and the appellants appears to have been dealt with in a most unfair manner in the sense that from the year 2018 for the very same TRAN – 1 issue the appellants have repeatedly been summoned, issued notices etc. The spot memos, which have been communicated to the appellants along with the communications dated 22nd March, 2021 is also for the very same purpose.