M/s ASHOKA FABRICAST PVT. LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Rajasthan
Pankaj Bhandari, Justice & Shubha Mehta, Justice
M/s ASHOKA FABRICAST PVT. LTD
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2859/2024 dated 01.05.2024
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 29, 35, 65 & 73
Decision : In favour of assessee
Validity of Audit notice u/s 65 – Audit notice and proceedings after cancellation of registration – Non-speaking order – Writ petition filed to challenge the audit and assessment proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017, for periods during which the petitioner was a registered person – Petitioner’s registration was cancelled on 16.01.2020, contended that section 65 of the CGST Act applies only to registered persons – It was claimed that the audit notice and the consequent proceedings are invalid as they were initiated after the cancellation of registration – Reliance placed upon judgment from the Madras High Court stating that audits can only be conducted against registered persons – Respondents argue that audits can be undertaken for any registered person for the period they were registered, as per Section 65 of the CGST Act – Also, contended that the petitioner’s writ petition is a delay tactic, filed only after the adverse assessment order was passed – petitioner allegedly fraudulently availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) and then applied for cancellation of registration – Respondents argue that the petitioner cannot seek relief under writ jurisdiction due to fraudulent actions – Held that – The court notes that the audit was initiated for periods when the petitioner was registered, making the proceedings valid – The petitioner’s delay in filing the writ petition and the alleged fraudulent availing of ITC weigh against granting relief – The court finds no error in the respondents’ proceedings and considers the audit and subsequent actions legally sound – Dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the audit and subsequent actions, emphasizing the continued liability for tax and other obligations despite the cancellation of registration. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs and directed to pursue appellate remedies.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: Akshay Sharma & Dheeraj Palia
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member