9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 1140 - HC - GSTValidity of Audit u/s 65 and Rule 101 of the GST - Violation of principles of natural justice - it is submitted that petitioner had filed reply dated 19.12.2023 to the discrepancy notice under Rule 101 (4) of the APGST/CGST Rules, 2017 served on the petitioner on 12.12.2022, but without considering the same the Final Audit Report was submitted - HELD THAT - Sub Rule (4) of Rule 101, provides that the proper officer may inform the registered person of the discrepancies noticed, if any, as observed in the audit and the said person may file his reply. The proper officer shall finalise the findings of the audit after due consideration of the reply furnished. In view of Rule 101(4), it is evident that after informing about the discrepancies noticed, if the person files the reply, the same is to be considered and on such consideration, the findings of the Final Audit Report are to be furnished. Here, it is now not disputed that the petitioner filed the reply and the same was not considered while finalizing the findings of the audit. The Final Audit Report is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions. The impugned Final Audit Report deserves to be quashed. The writ petition deserves to be allowed with further directions to the respondents. Any further proceeding if initiated, based on the impugned Final Audit Report, can also not stand. The writ petition is partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
The challenge to Final Audit Report based on violation of principles of natural justice. Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - The petitioner challenged the Final Audit Report dated 22.12.2023 on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. - The petitioner had filed a reply dated 19.12.2023 to the discrepancy notice under Rule 101(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. - The Final Audit Report did not consider the petitioner's reply, stating that "the tax payer did not file any reply to the proposed notice." - The Court found that the Final Audit Report was in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions as the petitioner's reply was not considered. - As per Rule 101(4), discrepancies noticed should be informed to the registered person, who may file a reply that must be considered before finalizing the audit findings. - The Final Audit Report was quashed on the ground of not considering the petitioner's reply, and the respondents were directed to consider the reply and finalize the audit report before proceeding further. Decision: - The writ petition was partly allowed, quashing the Final Audit Report on the basis of not considering the petitioner's reply to the discrepancy notice. - The respondents were instructed to consider the petitioner's reply, finalize the audit report, and proceed further in accordance with the law. - No costs were awarded in this matter, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were to be closed as a result of this judgment.
|
