Niraj Kumar Jaiswal vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Date: August 13, 2024
Subject Matter
No parallel GST Audit proceedings by State Authorities for the same financial year
Summary
The writ petition has been filed challenging the initiation of an audit by state authorities under Section 65 of the WBGST Act, 2017, despite the existence of a final audit report published under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed that the final report, published on April 15, 2024, indicated that they had fulfilled their tax liabilities for the period 2022-23, which was communicated to the State authorities prior to their request for an appearance on April 4, 2024. The petitioner contested that parallel proceedings by both the Central and State authorities regarding the same tax period are not permissible. The State's representative contended that the audits for different financial years have different scopes, allowing state proceedings to continue. The court, after hearing both sides, decided to restrain the State authorities from continuing with their proceedings regarding the same period (2022-23) until the matter is resolved, listing it for further consideration in September 2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the initiation of proceedings to conduct an audit in terms of Section 65 of the WBGST Act, 2017 despite the final audit report under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act, 2017 having been published in Form GST ADT – 02 dated 15th April 2024.
3. Mr. Shraff, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner by placing before this Court a communication issued by the petitioner, appearing at page 79 of the instant writ petition submits that notwithstanding the factum of the aforesaid final audit report having been published by the CGST authorities, had been communicated to the Deputy Commissioner by letter dated 1st April 2024, the State authorities by their communication dated 4th April 2024 by disregarding such final report, had called upon the petitioner to appear before the authorities. He submits that no parallel proceeding can be permitted to continue in respect of the self same tax period by two separate authorities.
4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the State respondents on the other hand submits that the CGST authorities had initiated audit proceeding for the financial years 2017-18 till 2021-22 and as such, there was no embargo on the part of the State authorities in proceeding further, on the basis of the report drawn by them on 8th January 2024, since the relevant period which felt for scrutiny by the State authorities was 2022-23.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.
6. Since, it prima facie appears that a final report under Section 65(6) of the said Act has already been published which, inter alia, in paragraph 3 thereof, records that the petitioner has made payment of the tax liability along with interest and penalty for the period 2022-23, I am of the view that no further proceedings can be continued against the petitioner for the self same period by the State authorities.
7. In view thereof, there shall be an order restraining the State respondents from proceeding further on the basis of their communication dated 4th April 2024, as appearing at page 80 of the instant writ petition, till disposal of the writ petition or until further order whichever is earlier.
8. List this matter for further consideration under the heading “for final disposal” in the combined monthly list of September 2024.