GST Audit completion does not bar authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 or 74:

GST Audit completion does not bar authorities to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 or 74 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics, holding it was granted sufficient time to respond to the show cause notice and also it had an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner (M/s Ess Ess Enterprises and Electronics) is engaged in the business of providing services in the nature of works contracts, etc., possessing GSTIN No. 01ANXPN8615J2ZH.

Also Read

Uttarakhand HC Allows GST Registration Revocation After Clearance of Outstanding Tax Dues

The petitioner had challenged a show cause notice dated February 06, 2026, a reminder dated March 11, 2026, and a demand order dated April 09, 2026, issued by the State Taxes Officer (STO), Circle-1 Kashmir, through which a tax liability of about Rs 3.41 crore was imposed on it under Section 73 of the Jummu and Kashmir Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. The petitioner argued that it was not granted a fair opportunity of hearing before the issuance of the impugned order. Further claimed that the proprietor was out of station when the first hearing was fixed and subsequently could not attend the second hearing because the date coincided with Eid al-Fitr, a public holiday.

Also Read

ITAT Delhi Grants Major Relief to Taxpayer, Deletes LTC Loss Disallowance and Rs 5,000 Late Fee

Also argued that once GST audit proceedings had already been completed under Section 65 of the CGST Act, the tax authorities cannot initiate fresh proceedings under Section 73 of the act. When the court analysed the entire case, it noted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act and was given a sufficient time limit to furnish a reply from February 06, 2026, to March 21, 2026, but still did not do so. Consequently, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. The Court further clarified that Section 65(7) of the CGST Act specifically allows the proper officer to initiate proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 if an audit reveals unpaid or short-paid tax. Therefore, the STO had the jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority.