2020 (3) TMI 264 - HC - Service Tax

Audit/verification of documents/records - Rule 5(A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, read with Section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner states that under Section 174 (2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017, which is the repeal and saving clause, Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 has not been saved and having regard to the fact that the said provision only saves a proceeding that has already been instituted at the time of repeal or omission of the 1994 Act and not thereafter, the respondents cannot be permitted to conduct an audit/verification of the accounts of the petitioner for the relevant financial years. HELD THAT - No interim relief of the nature as prayed for, can be granted without calling for a reply by the respondent. We are also not persuaded to come to the aid of the petitioner right away for the reason that it has taken almost three months reckoned from 01.11.2019, to approach the court for relief and that too at the nick of the time. Issue notice - List for consideration before the roster Bench on 04.03.2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption application
2. Interim relief application regarding quashing of audit notice

Exemption Application:
The High Court allowed the exemption application subject to all just exceptions, disposing of the application. This part of the judgment was straightforward and did not involve detailed analysis.

Interim Relief Application - Quashing of Audit Notice:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice intimating an audit for certain financial years. The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondents could not conduct the audit as Rule 5A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 had not been saved under Section 174(2)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017. The counsel cited interim orders from different cases to support this argument. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel contended that the repeal of Rule 5A did not affect ongoing investigations or proceedings. The Court noted the differing views presented and decided not to grant immediate interim relief without a reply from the respondent. The Court also highlighted the delay in approaching the court for relief, scheduling the matter for further consideration before the roster Bench.

In conclusion, the judgment involved two main issues: an exemption application and an interim relief application regarding the quashing of an audit notice. The Court provided a detailed analysis of the arguments presented by both parties regarding the legality of conducting the audit in question. The decision to withhold immediate interim relief and the scheduling of further proceedings demonstrated the Court's cautious approach in addressing the matter.