Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioner, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, sought to quash a notice dated December 31, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, for conducting an audit of M/s Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank for the periods 2012-13 to 2016-17 and April 17 to June 17, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notice and subsequent proceedings were void ab initio because M/s Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank had amalgamated with another entity in 2012, rendering it a non-existent company during the audit period and at the time of the notice's issuance. The respondents are the Union of India through the Revenue Secretary and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise.
Held
The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a fair submission requesting liberty to raise all the issues, which were the subject matter of the present petition, before the appropriate authority dealing with the impugned demand-cum-show cause notice dated April 11, 2022. The Court granted this liberty. It expressed hope that the appropriate authority would consider all the issues, including the material the petitioner may wish to place on record, in accordance with the law. The Court also reserved liberty for the petitioner to pursue other available remedies and to move an appropriate application for staying the implementation of the demand-cum-show cause notice. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the notice dated December 31, 2021, for conducting an audit of M/s Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank is void ab initio, considering the bank's amalgamation in 2012 and its subsequent non-existence during the audit period (2012-13 to 2016-17 and April 17 to June 17, 2017)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was void ab initio as the entity to be audited, M/s Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, had ceased to exist due to amalgamation in 2012. Therefore, any proceedings initiated against a non-existent entity are invalid. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Juri iction Case No.8253 of 2022 ====================================================== Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank through its General Manager, Head Office at Shri Vishnu Commercial Complex, NH 30, New Bypass, Near BP Highway Petrol Pump, Asochak, Patna-800 030. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus
Union of India through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Delhi), Pin Code-110019. 2. Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Audit Circle, Office at 9-Adarsh Colony, Kidwaipuri, Patna (Bihar), Pin Code-800001. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Archana Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-06-2022 The petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s : “for quashing the Notice dated 31.12.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2 for conducting Audit of M/s
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.